Celebrate protest

welland2

May 31

Amnesty webinar on the state of protest in Europe

May 2024

It seems that the UK is not alone in its attempts to stifle protest and passing laws to restrict individual's abilities to protest. Recent tensions with ministers and some of their media supporters concerned Extinction Rebellion, Rwanda and the related issue of the boat people and more recently, the events in Gaza and the treatment of the Palestinians. Amnesty International recently hosted a webinar to look at the issue of protest and some of the points made are discussed below.

Protest has a curious position in British culture and law since there is no direst right to protest: it is not a specific human right. There is a right to free speech and a right of assembly and these combine to enable people to come together to protest.

The value of protest is something that seems to be forgotten. The anger at the noise of disruption of a protest march overshadows the fact that this is a means to enable people to highlight a cause of concern. There are some who complain about the disruption and who say that they would not mind a peaceful protest, it's the noisy and disruptive ones they object to. The problem with a peaceful and noiseless protest which causes no disruption is that no one takes any notice. Many people report that visiting one's MP or writing letters to them is largely a waste of time. It is also forgotten that nearly all social reforms in the UK have come as a result of protest, some lasting decades. The positive history of protest is not generally known or recognised. It is seen as a nuisance and something to be curtailed or even better, stopped.

Webinar

The results of the survey will be published on July 9th and it will show some regional trends which include casting protest as a threat, claiming it is a privilege rather than a right and the increasing use of supposed public safety measures to curtail them. They conclude it is generally getting worse with a heavy police presence used to intimidate. Complaints against the police and the use of excessive force are difficult because of the lack of identification.

A lot depends on language and protestors are frequently described as 'rioters' with no justification. There are also attempts to cast protestors as 'illegitimate'.

One speaker from Clidef - with a focus on climate protest - spoke about the 'pincer movement'. This includes new legislation introduced by government together with the stretching of old laws. Police action and powers have been strengthened as already mentioned together with the greater use of prison sentences against alleged offenders: 138 Just Stop Oil protestors have been imprisoned for example. They are also trying to use conspiracy laws.

Secondly, private actors and the use of SLAPP actions [Strategic Litigations Against Public Protest] which are a means to use the law to intimidate those seeking to take action against wrongdoers. They are a means by the wealthy to use the law to silence critics since they can afford to effectively bankrupt them with costs.

Thirdly, the judiciary and he might have mentioned the legal system itself. Judges have been in the firing line for not allowing those on trial to say why they were protesting, fearful no doubt that once a jury realises that they were promoting a climate action, they would acquit. The final speaker asked 'who are they protecting? The activists or the companies?'

The theme of the webinar and the speaker contributions was that governments are increasingly dumbing down on protest whether it be the climate, Palestine or anything else. They give the impression of not liking dissent in any form and are using increasingly draconian tactics to inhibit, arrest and imprison those to engage in it.

Media

A theme not explored was the role of the tabloid media who almost without fail demonise protestors calling them things like 'eco-zealots', 'eco-mob', 'a rabble', and their actions amounting to 'mob rule'. Article after article describes protests in entirely negative terms and seldom give readers much (in fact next to nothing) in the way of an explanation of why they are protesting and the nature of their cause. It is to be presumed that they are reflecting public opinion and the views of their readers. Recent reports on the climate are extremely worrying. The fossil fuel companies are able to mount expensive lobbying campaigns to ensure their interests are looked after and extraction can continue. Protestors do not enjoy this privileged access to those in power and taking to the streets is the only way they can be heard. It is a shame that sections of the media are not able - or are disinclined - to reflect this imbalance of power and the inevitable effects it will bring to the climate.

Our right to protest is precious and should be defended.