Latest news with #protestrights
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Britain's rights watchdog warns against heavy-handed policing amid Gaza demos
Britain's human rights watchdog has warned against 'heavy-handed policing' which it said risks a 'chilling effect' on protest rights amid recent demonstrations about the war in Gaza. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has written to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley to remind them that the 'right to protest is a cornerstone of any healthy democracy'. The letter, from EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner, raised concerns about 'reports of police engagement with individuals participating in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation'. The commission referenced a report by the Guardian newspaper about a woman said to have been threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and signs saying 'Free Gaza' and 'Israel is committing genocide'. The woman was reportedly told by police that her demonstration in Canterbury, Kent, in July expressed views supportive of Palestine Action, an organisation which has been banned by the Government. The woman said neither of her signs mentioned Palestine Action and that she had told police she did not support any proscribed organisations. Baroness Falkner said any interference with protest rights 'must be lawful and assessed case-by-case'. She added: 'Heavy-handed policing or blanket approaches risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences. 'This concern extends beyond those directly affected by police engagement to the broader health of our democracy, because the perception that peaceful protest may attract disproportionate police attention undermines confidence in our human rights protections.' The EHRC said Government and police authorities must 'ensure that all officers receive clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations' when it comes to protests. 'This guidance should ensure that the appropriate balance is maintained between public safety and the protection of essential human rights,' Baroness Falkner added. Palestine Action was proscribed by the UK Government in July, with the ban meaning that membership of, or support for, the group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. More than 500 people were arrested last weekend on suspicion of displaying an item in support of a proscribed group, as demonstrations took place in central London. Downing Street has described Palestine Action as 'violent' and said it has committed 'significant injury' as well as criminal damage, adding that evidence and security assessments shared in closed court supported its proscription. Palestine Action said Downing Street's accusations were 'false and defamatory' and 'disproven by the Government's own intelligence assessment'.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Palestine Action arrests: what happens next, and what it tells us about the breadth of Britain's counter-terrorism laws
The proscription of Palestine Action – banning membership or support for the organisation on the ground that the home secretary believes it is 'concerned in terrorism' – has led to hundreds of arrests, two legal challenges and many questions about the state of protest rights in the UK. More than 500 people were arrested last weekend, the overwhelming majority for displaying a placard in support of a proscribed organisation. This is an offence according to section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and carries a sentence of six months or fine. All have been released on bail, save for a handful who refused to give their details to police. The decision to proscribe has arguably affected the free speech rights of the group and its supporters. This issue is why a High Court judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, has granted Palestine Action permission to challenge its proscription by means of judicial review. In his view, it was reasonably arguable that the proscription order amounted to a disproportionate interference with articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. These guarantee a right to free speech and peaceful assembly. Disproportionate governmental decisions – that do not properly balance an individual's rights against the wider public interest (in, say, national security) – are unlawful in the UK under the Human Rights Act 1998. If the court at the full hearing in November agrees, and decides the proscription order does not strike a proportionate balance, it will almost certainly quash it. The effect of striking down an order such as here is to take the law back to Day Zero, as if it had never been passed. What will happen to those arrested? The High Court has had the power since 2022 to make a quashing order effective only from the date of the decision. If that happened here, any previous convictions would stand. But if, as is more conventional, the quashing order covered the entire period of proscription, anyone still in the criminal justice system and yet to be found guilty would have their charges dropped. It would be impossible to continue a prosecution if in law Palestine Action had never been proscribed at all. More interesting would be those who have been convicted between July and November. Their convictions or fines are not automatically discharged with the quashing order. There is a trial of three supporters set for September. An instructive parallel here are the recent convictions of various Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion activists. Several were convicted under 'serious disruption' regulations, which were ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal in May. The human rights advocacy group Liberty has called on the CPS to review all convictions under the older, lower standard. Broad definition of terrorism Palestine Action has committed serious property damage to influence the government or to intimidate arms manufacturers into stopping, and has done so for a political or ideological cause. That is almost certainly within the UK's definition of terrorism, which illuminates the breadth of that term and the uncertainties surrounding its application. Palestine Action's co-founder, Huda Ammori, initially tried to challenge the proscription order in July, through an application seeking interim relief preventing the order coming into force. In this judicial review, Chamberlain thought the terrorism definition capable of covering Palestine Action. His decision in favour of the home secretary was upheld by the Court of Appeal later that day. But the unprecedented application of counter-terrorism law to a direct action group highlights how the UK's terrorism definition is now much wider than under the previous law. That law defined it as 'the use of violence for political ends, including any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear'. MI5 advice to the Home Secretary and presented to the court in July acknowledge the novelty of proscribing a group that did not use or advocate violence to achieve its political ends. The current law also requires no proof that someone is actually made fearful or terrorised. Other states have higher bars – Ireland requires serious intimidation – or seem to generally manage without laws and powers to deal with terrorism, as is the case in Germany. Legal commentators have pointed out for years the possibility of terrorism law capturing direct action protesters. In my own book in 2010, I offered the view that an environmental group that destroyed a farmer's GM crop field would probably mean they came within the terrorism definition. It's worth pointing out that while the Terrorism Act creates the offence of support for a proscribed group, it does not require officers to arrest. They must exercise discretion. In this case, that includes a consideration of the free speech rights of hundreds of protesters. It would have been perfectly lawful, albeit politically contentious, to have decided arrests were not warranted, given that there was no obvious and direct harm posed to national security (or to others) by the peaceful expression of what is, currently at least, an unlawful view. We can see such discretion in Northern Ireland, where PSNI do not regularly arrest those waving flags proclaiming support for UVF or IRA – both long-term proscribed organisations. Seeing such depictions can only reinforce the views of those who argue the clampdown on Palestine Action is politically motivated and partial. And as law professor Geoff Pearson suggests, the longer the laws are in force and police continue to enforce them to the degree witnessed last weekend, the more police legitimacy will be called into question. Finally, the mass arrests reflect what I consider a very real problem in protest law: the limitations of effective, timely enforcement. Being released after 24 hours does not remedy the fact you were removed from your protest site. An effective right of protest is about not just the law, but the reality on the ground. Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being up for our weekly , delivered every Friday. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. David Mead is affiliated with The Labour Party and UCU, and serves on Liberty's Policy Council
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Britain's rights watchdog warns against heavy-handed policing amid Gaza demos
Britain's human rights watchdog has warned against 'heavy-handed policing' which it said risks a 'chilling effect' on protest rights amid recent demonstrations about the war in Gaza. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has written to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley to remind them that the 'right to protest is a cornerstone of any healthy democracy'. The letter, from EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner, raised concerns about 'reports of police engagement with individuals participating in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation'. The commission referenced a report by the Guardian newspaper about a woman said to have been threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and signs saying 'Free Gaza' and 'Israel is committing genocide'. The woman was reportedly told by police that her demonstration in Canterbury, Kent, in July expressed views supportive of Palestine Action, an organisation which has been banned by the Government. The woman said neither of her signs mentioned Palestine Action and that she had told police she did not support any proscribed organisations. Baroness Falkner said any interference with protest rights 'must be lawful and assessed case-by-case'. She added: 'Heavy-handed policing or blanket approaches risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences. 'This concern extends beyond those directly affected by police engagement to the broader health of our democracy, because the perception that peaceful protest may attract disproportionate police attention undermines confidence in our human rights protections.' The EHRC said Government and police authorities must 'ensure that all officers receive clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations' when it comes to protests. 'This guidance should ensure that the appropriate balance is maintained between public safety and the protection of essential human rights,' Baroness Falkner added. Palestine Action was proscribed by the UK Government in July, with the ban meaning that membership of, or support for, the group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. More than 500 people were arrested last weekend on suspicion of displaying an item in support of a proscribed group, as demonstrations took place in central London. Downing Street has described Palestine Action as 'violent' and said it has committed 'significant injury' as well as criminal damage, adding that evidence and security assessments shared in closed court supported its proscription. Palestine Action said Downing Street's accusations were 'false and defamatory' and 'disproven by the Government's own intelligence assessment'.
The Guardian
27-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Suspend UK from oil oversight body over protests crackdown, say campaign groups
A coalition of civil society groups is calling for the UK government to be suspended from a key global body that oversees how oil and gas companies are run. The campaigners say Keir Starmer's Labour party has overseen a 'fossil-fuel sponsored crackdown' on peaceful protest and direct action in the UK since it came to power last year. They argue that these measures – which have led to a record number of peaceful climate activists jailed – are incompatible with the UK's continued membership of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), an organisation that brings together governments, companies, and civil society to improve the governance of big oil. Jolyon Maugham, the executive director at the Good Law Project, was one of the those to sign Friday's submission, which was sent to the EITI on Friday morning. 'Until our government remembers it isn't a private security firm for the oil and gas industry, recognises the important right to protest and stops jailing peaceful climate activists, the UK should be suspended from the initiative,' he said. The UK government has faced severe criticism for its crackdown on the right to protest. Michel Forst, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders, has described the situation in the UK as 'terrifying'. This week the government moved to proscribe Palestinian Action under the Terrorism Act, putting the direct action group into the same legal category as al-Qaida and Islamic State. The EITI, which is based in Oslo, has more than 50 countries – including the UK – as members. It aims to give equal voice to big oil, governments and civil society groups in overseeing how extractive industries are run, from how contracts are awarded, to political donations and taxes. Part of its standard, to which all signatories must adhere, states: 'The government is required to ensure that there is an enabling environment for civil society participation with regard to relevant laws, regulations and administrative rules as well as actual practice in implementation of the EITI.' But the campaigners say successive UK governments have been in breach of this requirement, pointing to a swathe of harsh anti-protest measures that have been introduced – and highlighting the influence of individuals, including the government's independent adviser on political violence, and rightwing thinktanks with links to the fossil fuel industry. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Tim Crosland, the director of the climate justice charity Plan B, which also signed today's submission, said: 'The UK government has sold off democracy to its sponsors in the fossil fuel industry. It allows them to draft the laws to silence and jail their own civil society critics. If that conforms to the EITI standard for promoting civil society engagement in extractive industry governance, the standard isn't set very high.' Member countries must be validated against the EITI standard at least every three years and the UK's validation period is due to begin on 1 July. The submission was was signed by the Good Law Project, Plan B, the Corner House and Defend Our Juries. A decision on the UK's continued membership is expected later in the summer.
