There has never been a shortage of issues which will cause an outpouring of disapproval and upset amongst the public. Recent times are no exception with the current groups in the headlines being the pro-Palestine protests and the ongoing protests from the ‘Just Stop Oil’ and far right groups.
This blog post isn’t going to discuss the legalities of protest (though a useful summary provided by the Guardian last year is a helpful quick read, and also this from Liberty), but rather some thoughts on the issues surrounding protests and the related (but separate) topic of Free Speech.
It is largely undisputed within the UK now that peaceful protest is a good and healthy part of the democratic process. In previous centuries we had civil wars, feuding and bloodshed on a regular basis as the way of dealing with conflicting opinions and challenges for power. Having a democratic process for different groups to express their views and opinions in a legal way is an essential part of enabling a law abiding and peaceful society.
Accordingly, we should be very wary of any attempt to prevent legal & peaceful protest. However, this is very different from stating that this confers a right on anyone to do what they want, when they want, how they want – in fact such an approach is the antithesis of peaceful good order and is instead anarchy.
It should go without saying that the damage of other people’s property & the breaking of law should be dealt with swiftly and powerfully by our police force. Similarly, threatening, intimidating and violent behaviour towards others are not within what should be considered acceptable protest.
I stand firmly behind all those who promote free speech, and agree that anyone should be free to express a view or opinion without fear or favour. However, alongside this comes the equal position which is that whilst I will seek to protect your right to say what you want, I will also stand by the right of anyone else to not have to listen to what you say, and nor be impeded or inconvenienced by any protestor whilst going about their legal daily business.
It is in this vein that our conclusions should be to permit any peaceful protest on any topic (irrespective of our personal views on the rights or wrongs of the views of those protesting). But before we move onto the topic of what such protests should/should not include, it’s worth a brief digression to ask whether there can ever be justification for not permitting protest and/or a public show of support for a particular cause.
For example, during world war 2, would we think it acceptable for any groups to organise pro-Nazi protests? In theory, the logic and rationale above would lead us to conclude that so long as it was
legal and peaceful, then such views should have been permitted to be expressed publicly. From the distance of 80 years we may now intellectually reach such a conclusion, but I believe you’d be hard
pressed to find any public approval of such a thing in 1940. So which is right – the cool headed, time
distant, semi-detached logic? Or the real time, emotional response of dealing with a situation live in the moment?
Where my thinking currently lands on this is to acknowledge the theoretical and academic argument that permits any and all peaceful, legal protest; but with the pragmatic acknowledgement that for certain topics at certain times it is unwise and unhelpful for some things to be said and done.
This brings us back to the issue around protesting itself. A protest is the opportunity to make a clear,
loud and public statement around either approval or disapproval in relation to a particular issue. In particular it is usually associated with trying to obtain some change within the powers of government or legislation; and as noted earlier this is an important part of the democratic system. However, it is
clear that this permission is open to abuse (as indeed are all our freedoms and choices), and it can be used by those who simply want to achieve mischief & disruption.
Of course you can add to the above that protest can be used to try and undermine the Government and existing societal structures. To which the answer is ‘yes it can’; indeed it’s almost the sole purpose of protest to seek change in Government or society – and that’s partly why it’s a necessary part of society. But this has to be counterbalanced by the fact that there is no right on any one individual or group, however large or small to impose their will, rules or conventions on anyone else except by way
of the elected Government. Within our democracy there is only one way to bring about a change in law – and that is to vote in a Government with a majority support which will enact the desired change in legislation or policy.
Protest is a fair way to try and make your point heard. And indeed in today’s society there are many ways of ensuring your point is heard. But being permitted to make your point is no license to intimidate, dominate, coerce & threaten others (and is also tempered by the duty to respect the value and traditions of others). Our police should rightly have powers to prevent such things from taking place. My fear is that too often the police would like to shut down a particular protest but don’t do so for no other reason than the use of force required could escalate the situation, and so they decide that an otherwise ‘illegal’’ protest is the lesser of two evils. Maybe such pragmatism should be applauded, but when this is seen to be appeasing minorities against the wishes of the majority and the direction of the democratically elected Government it’s worth questioning whether a re-think is required and that such illegal protests should indeed be shut down. This also sends a clear message about what behaviour is & isn’t acceptable in our country, and the significant consequences of not abiding by that. A very worthy goal if we’re going to avoid slipping into the anarchy, chaos and bloodshed of our past history.