We Should Be Concerned About New Anti-protest Legislation

Amid the nauseating guff that was spouted all weekend on the news channels vis-a-vis the recent coronation of Charlie Three, there was a side issue that was too big for the news media to ignore. I refer to the police clampdown against those who desired to make it known via placards that the head of state is Not My King, an act of suppression more suited to the regime of North Korea than the free-speech-loving inhabitants of John Bull’s Island.

The police, no doubt, feared the motley mob might set off smoke bombs, roll marbles under the hooves of guardsmens’ horses, and run alongside the gold state coach with hands firmly superglued to the rumps of the beasts pulling that ostentatious monstrosity. Such disruption would never do, so taking the view that prevention is better than cure, the police swooped on prospective protestors, clapping them in handcuffs and seizing their placards.

Disruptive action

Only days before the coronation, the Home Office introduced a new anti-protest law that allows police officers to arrest protesters in advance of any disruptive action. The timing of the introduction of the new law was, according to the Home Office, coincidental. Security minister, Tom Tugendhat, said that anti-monarchists would still “have the liberty to protest, but they would not have the liberty to disrupt others. That’s where we’re drawing a difference.”

A total of 64 people were arrested on Saturday on a range of charges that included being in possession of a megaphone. Many have viewed this approach as heavy-handed and at odds with our cherished right to protest. The chair of the London Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee, Caroline Russell, called the actions of the police “a chilling suppression.”

Graham Smith, leader of the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said he was arrested and held in a police cell for 16 hours. His arrest came despite the group having been in discussions with the Met for four months. He told the BBC; “The whole thing was a deliberate attempt to disrupt and diminish our protest in order to protect the coronation,”

Mr Smith added that the Met had "repeatedly said right up until Friday that they had no concerns about our protest plans, they were well aware of what we were going to do, and they would engage with us and not disrupt us. So they have repeatedly lied about their intentions, and I believe that they had every intention of arresting us prior to doing so.”

Civil disobedience

By its very nature, protest is disruptive, and here in Britain, we have a rich tapestry of examples of that. From the destruction of a threshing machine by labourers in 1830 that triggered a revolt across southern England, during which many more machines were destroyed, to the suffragette movement and their policy of civil disobedience, right up to recent times, and the Just Stop Oil protester who attached himself via a cable-tie around the neck to a goalpost at half time during a football match.

Protest and civil disobedience are ineffective if those protesting are made to follow rules and guidelines. In many cases, the element of surprise is a key part of attracting publicity and getting a message across. Had the Russian punk band Pussy Riot asked permission to perform their protest piece A Punk Prayer at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, they would have been refused, so they did it without clearance and were later jailed. Protest with restrictions attached is sterile, and that's just how the authorities like it.

Probably lefties

Meanwhile, back at the coronation, a bunch of protesters, who are probably lefties anyway, being arrested wouldn’t attract a great deal of sympathy from the majority, who hoped for the event to go off without hindrance. And, for those who have been recently inconvenienced by the actions of such organisations as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, the clampdown may have been viewed as a welcome form of retribution. But the bigger picture shows that this affects us all, and we should be concerned.

For, what if something were to happen in a locality that citizens would be likely to protest against? Let us say for example, a proposed bypass that would destroy an area of much-loved woodland. The usual plan is to hold placards and invite passing motorists to honk their support. It would be difficult to achieve such an audible show of solidarity if the placard inviting participation was in the back of a police van — along with its owner.

In this country, it's as though we tamely accept the erosion of our rights with the traditional stiff upper lip and cup of sweet tea. For some reason, we live in an atmosphere of apathy, and my countrymen seem less inclined to kick against the pricks in large numbers than those of other nations, and a recent illustration of this contrast could be seen across the channel in France. When President Macron’s government set about raising the pension age for French citizens from 62 to 64, vast swathes of the populace took their anger onto the streets. Here in Blighty, the retirement age is 66, and this is expected to rise to 68 by 2044. On the whole, the people are cool with that.