The right to protest and freedom of expression are fundamental elements of a pluralist democracy. Freedom of expression and freedom to protest peacefully should be indivisible. Protests close to Parliament represent a strong and momentous way for people to protest in a way that is highly visible to their elected representatives.
For all of these reasons, we should feel uncomfortable about the fact that the protesters in Parliament Square being moved on this morning and long standing protesters, such as Brian Haw being arrested.
It seems that much of the commentary about the break up of the demonstration seems to hinge on whether the commentators agree with the demonstration or not. I didn’t see some of the right wing commentators who seem so offended by the anti capitalist and anti war demonstrations lamenting the fact that the Countryside Alliance, for example, spent so much time in Parliament Square a few years ago.
Needless to say, whether you agree with the demonstrators or not should be beside the point. If you believe in freedom to protest then you believe in freedom to protest. The right to protest should not be limited because you do not agree with the views of the protestors or because you believe that the protest is creating an ‘eyesore’ (which is, after all, a subjective term anyhow). The right to protest should certainly not be limited because it causes a minor inconvenience to Members of Parliament.
We should be cherishing our freedoms and celebrating the fact that people (whether we agree with them or not) are politically engaged. The Police breaking up a peaceful protest about anything is something that we should be deeply concerned about.
Related posts:
Delusional rubbish. The Coiuntryside Alliance protested for a couple of hours. None of them pitched tents and set up residence. The current thing is not a protest, it is a campsite or squat.
As one of your “right wing commentators” i totally defend the right to protest and would repeal Laboiur’s SOCPA laws. But that means one person, one banner but not one tent.
Pingback: Indy front-page shows govt hypocrisy on liberties | Liberal Conspiracy
Well said Iain. If I went and set up a campsite on the cricket pitch in my village no doubt I would soon be moved along. Especially if I started to throw my litter out on to it as well. This has absolutely nothing to do with their right to protest. I am all for that, it is to do with illegally squatting on a piece of land they do not own.
They are effectively living there. If anyone could just turn up on any piece of grass and build themselves a home, be it temporary or permanent, without ownership of that land then that is what we should be worrying about.
Iain, if the tents were the reason for the police action then why didn’t they do it weeks ago? Or why didn’t the police remove them from the site completely this time? This was not about protesters on what you falsely claim in one of your blog posts to be a world heritage site, this was about the police making a crackdown on the state opening of parliament. If it wasn’t then why didn’t the police remove them from the site instead of searching their tents?
Well said Iain and Simon Hughes even said they should be removed, on The Politics Show today. In his words: “The right to protest is totally different from a permanent camp on private land”
It’s unfortunatelty not up to the Police apparently.
I’d like to know what these long-term protesters are claiming in benefits – are they making themselves available for work? Are they long-term sick? What does Mr Haw live on, financially?
Right to protest? Absolutely.
Right to make a persistent nuisance of yourself? No.
I think it is bizarre that the byelaws governing Parliament Square are not being enforced (given they clearly prohibit camps). Perhaps people like Iain Dale might like to ask why they don’t pursue this – it would be better than cowardly harassing the protesters.
The liberal part of my philosophy is screaming out to agree with David Skelton, but I must admit that I cannot agree that this camp is anything more than an opportunistic nuisance. I am sure there are those at the camp who are genuinely concerned by the issues, but it would not surprise me at all if many of them are simply jumping on the bandwagon. If so their protest seems a bit hollow. What I am also struggling to get my head around is why Haws has been making camp there for years without being disturbed, but as soon as a few people join in something must be done. Haws, like the rest of them should be told that actually this issue is very simple – the land is private and whilst they can stand outside Parliament and make speeches, hold banners and hand out leaflets which reflect their political philosophy, what they cannot do is break the law. Otherwise aren’t we simply saying that individuals breaking laws is fine… but collectively it is not? I say let them protest, but don’t let them break the law.
However illiberal Labour may be Conservatives are bound to be more illiberal, because opposing democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to protest and civil liberties is what conservatism has always been all about. After all, what other freedom do you need if you are free to buy and sell?