18 ms·

UN Human Rights Chief Urges UK to Reverse ‘Deeply Troubling’ Public Order Bill

376 points by BerislavLopac 3y ago

steve76 3y ago
[dead]
maxehmookau 3y ago
I'm conflicted because there are parts of this bill that are awful and massively chilling to free speech, but also within it are provisions to make the areas directly outside abortion clinics free from harassment by anti-choice groups.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Serenacula 3y ago
  I've not heard about that being a big issue here on the first place, and it absolutely doesn't justify the blatant dismantling of our democracy. They've been gradually pushing fascist laws into place for years, this is just the latest in a long stream. I honestly don't understand why nobody seems more concerned about stuff like this.
  - Aromasin 3y ago
    Political apathy is at an all time low in the UK it feels like. We've had political upheaval after upheaval in the last 10-15 years, be it Brexit, Covid-19, Tory Austerity, the Coalition government, rising Scottish Independence sentiments, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and Truss almost singlehandedly rocketing inflation to something we haven't seen since the financial crisis in the early 2000's. People are exhausted by a never-ending parade of scandals. The conservative government should have been out in 2019, but were saved by having a socialist, Corbyn led opposition party that did not resonate with any of their centrist Blairite voter base. Labour crumbled into infighting, and the Conservatives swept up another 48 seats. Most people just want to keep their heads down and make it through this period of financial uncertainty, waiting out until the next general election so they can oust the Conservatives. Of course the Tories are going to try and sneak in as much abhorrent policy as they can in the time they have left.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      >Political apathy is at an all time low in the UK it feels like. Do you mean all time high? "Apathy" means a "lack of interest or concern"[1], so "all time low lack of interest or concern" would suggest political interest is at an all time high due to double negatives ("low lack"). [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apathy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apathy
      - stareatgoats 3y ago
        It's not hard to understand what they meant.
      - Aromasin 3y ago
        I did mean all time high. A simple word slip.
    - okeuro49 3y ago
      > Of course the Tories are going to try and sneak in as much abhorrent policy as they can in the time they have left. Labour have been captured by the fringe outside of its own party, so I don't have much hopes for Labour over the Tories.
      - dagw 3y ago
        Labour have been captured by the fringe outside of its own party I hear this a lot from a lot of people in and around the Labour Party, but no one seems to agree on who is 'inside' and who is 'outside'. Which fringe are you referring to? The "Blairite" fringe or the "Corbynista" fringe.
    - gadders 3y ago
      Truss was in power in September/October and only put inflation up 0.5% https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi The problem with the Tories is that they have imposed some of the highest levels of personal taxation ever seen. If the Conservatives are not a low tax party, then they lose their whole purpose and we get the Labour-lite Davos-man bunch of incompetents we have now.
  - maxehmookau 3y ago
    > I've not heard about that being a big issue here on the first place, and it absolutely doesn't justify the blatant dismantling of our democracy. As someone who lives within walking distance of an abortion clinic, I can say that it is a very serious issue and money is pouring in to anti-choice groups in the UK.
- fqyzj 3y ago
  Not being able to demonstrate outside an abortion clinic is also a free speech issue.
  - krapp 3y ago
    So is me not being able to demonstrate inside your house. That free speech can be limited by the right of free association, private property and public safety needs has been an established principle for centuries. And if anti-abortionists can demonstrate elsewhere, which they can and do, it isn't much of an issue. It's not as if the pro-life camp is at risk of not having their views heard if they can't block the doors to abortion clinics and call women whores and killers right to their faces.
    - fqyzj 3y ago
      >So is me not being able to demonstrate inside your house. That is quite the movement of goalposts. "Outside an abortion clinic" is by definition a public space. Inside my house is not a public space. Demonstrating in a public space should be protected as free speech.
      - krapp 3y ago
        I think you moved the goalposts from making a broad argument about free speech to now a narrow argument about property rights. Now maybe try to address my actual point, which is that no rights are absolute and always need to be balanced in context against other rights and public safety.
        fqyzj 3y ago
        I did: >Demonstrating in a public space should be protected as free speech. That, for me, is an absolute. Demonstrating doesn't include blocking a highway or not allowing entrance to such clinic. Not even touching a client or worker. But staying there? Yes of course it should be protected.
    - causality0 3y ago
- robbick 3y ago
  But isn't that how they get you? By lumping in some common sense good stuff with some dystopian crap. If they really wanted to fix the issue at abortion clinics they could have done that in a small quick bill. It is a smaller scale version of the cameron government that cut everything to the bone, but they legalised gay marriage (though needed labour votes to actually get it done) so they aren't the bad guys, right? (obviously that was separate bills but I think the point works on a larger scale too)
  - maxehmookau 3y ago
    For sure, I totally agree. Right now though, we have these protections and if they repeal (which they should), I hope they leave those protections in place.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- superchroma 3y ago
  Nobody asked for overloaded bills. The appropriate change is to unbundle the mixed bag of policy and do it properly piece by piece.
- substation13 3y ago
  We can't let this "bundling" of laws allow things to slip though the net. The solution is to make a new bill with the good parts.
- _joel 3y ago
  How much of an issue is that in the UK? I don't think I've seen a report about it here for years, but that's not to say it doesn't happen. I'd be interested to see facts to back up this.
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/02/us-anti-abortion-groups-uk-far-right https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/02/us-anti-aborti... Search for UK abortion clinic news. No it's no where near as bad as what happens in the US but it has been getting worse.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    Somewhat. It's nowhere near the scale of the problem that the US had say ten years ago, but for some individuals it's definitely intimidating. The laws already on the books made it possible to secure orders to make a group stop for example, congregating outside your clinic harassing patients, but this power is very limited, it's local (so if your local politicians aren't supportive, too bad, even if they aren't actively working against you chances are you'll never get it up the agenda far enough to actually get a legal order without their support) and it expires - and so you end up with a situation where lots of places would like to get an order, but few secure one, and then when they do local budget constraints make it hard to justify keeping it - after all the harassment is gone, and we could use that cash to do something else. The ideal would be to live in a society where people didn't feel like screaming "murderer" at strangers and lying to as many people as possible was a reasonable social activity.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >within it are provisions to make the areas directly outside abortion clinics free from harassment by religious fanatics. Do they also prevent pro-abortion fanatics from demonstrating outside churches and the offices of anti-abortion lawmakers?
  - smcl 3y ago
    Why on Earth would they do that? Is there a big problem with "pro-abortion fanatics" trying to stop people having access to healthcare?
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Interestingly, the FACE Act in these United States ("Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances") provides equal protection to crisis pregnancy centers and other related pro-life clinics and counseling offices. The definition used by FACE covers pro-life and pro-abortion facilities alike, and so all types of pregnancy centers have the same buffer around them, protected from fanatics who would harrass vulnerable mothers who are about to make a momentous choice which affects them, their children, the father, and their whole family.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  You wrote the same sentence twice.
- Sharlin 3y ago
  Is harassment by religious fanatics right outside abortion clinics actually a problem anywhere in the West but the US? Europe doesn't really have the US-type fundamental evangelical movements at all, and Catholics are for the most part a pretty chill bunch.
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    Yes, it's not as bad but there are still loons in the UK hassling every woman who goes to the clinics.
  - SilverBirch 3y ago
    A massive problem with political issues in the UK is that the US constantly tries to export their bullshit to us. So yes, unfortunately there is a problem with it - although no where near the scale of the US. There's also a problem that failed politicians on the far right in the UK can essentially fund their entire political projects with support from US interests trying to push us further right.
    - Sharlin 3y ago
      Ah, should have realized :/
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Ditto Canada. Even worse by proximity, in some ways. Worse still as the UK used to be the foil.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > A massive problem with political issues in the UK is that the US constantly tries to export their bullshit to us. How does the US try to export their bullshit to the UK?
      - easytiger 3y ago
        By sharing the anglosphere
      - 3y ago
- Veen 3y ago
  Isn't it annoying how hard it is to ban behaviour you don't like without risking banning behaviour you approve of. What's a progressive authoritarian to do?
  - maxehmookau 3y ago
    It's not that simple. They haven't been banned, they've been moved 100m down the road from outside the doors of the clinic. A very fair, and reasonable compromise I feel.
    - dataduck 3y ago
      Would it be fair to allow anti-monarchy protesters to protest only 100m from anyone celbrating the coronation?
      - silasdavis 3y ago
        Surely 100 yards would be more appropriate
      - flumpcakes 3y ago
        I think there's a difference between protesting an event and protesting individuals seeking medical help.
- okeuro49 3y ago
  > areas directly outside abortion clinics free from harassment by religious fanatics There are some videos of "religious fanatics" standing alone, silently, outside abortion clinics, being moved on by police, on the suspicion that they are praying in their minds. You can't really pick and choose which views are acceptable. Either you have the right to protest peacefully, guided by your own conscience, or you don't.
  - maxehmookau 3y ago
    It's not that simple. They are allowed to protest and have a protected right to do so; 100m down the road, where they cannot harass vulnerable women. That's the law, and I hope it stays that way.
- tjpnz 3y ago
  If you want freedom of speech you must also be prepared to defend it for everyone.
- pookha 3y ago
  I'm not conflicted at all...I fully stand in support of people I disagree with having the right to voice their minds in public without having to worry about government security forces and patty wagons.
  - maxehmookau 3y ago
    And I stand fully in support of proportionate curbs on freedom of speech for people determined to enforce their religious views on others in a harassing manner.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  Praying silently in one's head is "harassment"? [0][1][2] [0] https://adf.uk/parliament-introduces-thought-crime/ https://adf.uk/parliament-introduces-thought-crime/ [1] https://aleteia.org/2023/03/09/pray-get-arrested-repeat-uk-woman-charged-for-silent-prayer-again/ https://aleteia.org/2023/03/09/pray-get-arrested-repeat-uk-w... [2] https://aleteia.org/2022/12/24/uk-woman-arrested-for-silent-prayer-outside-english-abortion-clinic/ https://aleteia.org/2022/12/24/uk-woman-arrested-for-silent-...
  - maxehmookau 3y ago
    Yes. I live near where this woman protests. Those sources you've provided are clearly biased and very inaccurate. She was arrested after breaching a protection order in that particular space after being repeatedly warned not to and being given the chance to move 100m up the street. She chose not to, and was arrested. ADF in particular are not nice people. In 2003 they even tried to recriminalise homosexuality in the US.[1] Speaking as a local resident who has to put up with her group taking up space, disrupting locals and during the pandemic flanking the outside of the abortion clinic with their faces covered, I think they should move 100m up the road where their impact is limited but they can offer whatever "help" they want to people who seek it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom#Opposition_to_LGBTQ_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom#Opp...
- barry-cotter 3y ago
  This is satire, right? You’re not actually saying you’re in favour of free speech and then in the same sentence supporting suppression of speech you dislike.
  - maxehmookau 3y ago
    Yes, I am. Because the world is not black and white and outside of the US, free speech is not absolute. In some countries, your right to to access abortion trumps someone elses right to stand outside and make you feel bad about it. I'm OK with that. As are the majority of folks in the UK.
sofixa 3y ago
Honestly it's pretty scary how easy it is to pass such legislation in the UK. That's what happens when there's no written concise framework of government but centuries of "tradition" and "precedent" that are improvised upon, and which have no special threshold of change (e.g. to change the constitution in some countries requires a special assembly, or qualified majority, or plebiscite, etc.).
- thinkingemote 3y ago
  Legislation can be passed but there are still some checks in the legislature. Takes time though but there's examples where the judges have deemed a law unlawful. Usually based on common law basis. With this law I'd say that all of what it's trying to address is already covered by existing laws. For example, harassment in public spaces is already illegal.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > Usually based on common law basis Oh, that's a great basis. Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century and a judge decided whatever, how very useful as a legal base upon which to decide modern things. (Like that story which is the basis of contract law about some ships a couple of centuries ago). It's quite sad how obsolete and overcomplicated for no reason whatsoever (as in, to understand a case today, you have to go dig up precedents going back centuries to understand how they might impact this case; no wonder there's entire professions, software, AI assistants to help lawyers navigate this quagmire) common law is, and how countries have stuck with it.
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      > Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century I think the point of "common law" is that the precedents describe laws that people basically understand, and they expect that what governs their behaviour now is the law they understand. Statute law, especially modern statute law, tends to be a mess of exceptions, definitions and cross-references. It's all legalese, and only an expert can understand it. Plus, it's all subject to intepretation by the courts, so precedent affects statute law as well as common law. And unlike statutes, most court precedents aren't publicly accessible, unless you have access to a law library or Westlaw. If you expect people to obey the law, then you need to express it in ways that people can understand. If they don't know what the law is, you can't expect them to comply. One of the nice things about the US constitution is that it's mostly written in fairly plain English. I suppose that might be why many non-Americans admire it. One of the nastiest things about it, though, is that its so damned difficult to change.
mixtur2021 3y ago
Another side of this story: https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/17/thousands-condemn-extinction-rebellion-road-blocks-stop-ambulances-getting-12256369/ https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/17/thousands-condemn-extinction-... This feels like a partisan hatchet job. There is a balance. Freedom of protest does not give the right to perpetually block roads and motorways putting protestors and others into danger. This organisation had no issue with governments imposing multi year lockdowns without any form of criticism.
- _joel 3y ago
  There was already a degree of legistlation in place to tackle this and when did we have "multi-year" lockdowns. Come on now.
  - darepublic 3y ago
    Referring to COVID I think
    - _joel 3y ago
      Sure, they weren't 'multi-year' though they cumulatively were months, not years. It's disengenous to say multi-year and reeks of another agenda imho.
  - happymellon 3y ago
    Are you referring to the couple of months in 2020? Because we didn't really have any sort of lock down in the UK, the Tories just said the police would need to informally enforce a non-rule. The met responded that they were not going to enforce anything that wasn't an actual rule. There were words said and a couple of high profile incidents which shows how little any sort of lockdown happened. I know I drove around the country still and no one ever asked why, and all my neighbours had garden parties with social gathers still happening.
    - hanoz 3y ago
      You broke the law and got away with it. That doesn't mean millions of people weren't having a thoroughly miserable time of it observing the law, and for a lot longer than "a couple of months in 2020".
xeyownt 3y ago
"Super powers will become super tyrannies" -- Apocalypse, John (in some parallel universe not far from ours)
hulitu 3y ago
> UN Human Rights Chief Urges UK to Reverse ‘Deeply Troubling’ Public Order Bill I'm sure it is a mistake. He surely meant China. /s
- Randomizer42 3y ago
  Bingo!
  - biofox 3y ago
    It's harder to criticise someone when they're less receptive to criticism.
samwillis 3y ago
For little extra context here (for anyone not in the UK), since the OP article was published we had the coronation at the weekend during which many anti-monarchy protestors were arrested - despite prior approval and communication with the Police ahead of the protest. This has been seen as the first major use of these new powers: > Police accused of ‘alarming’ attack on protest rights after anti-monarchist leader arrested https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-leading-anti-monarchy-group-arrested-at-coronation-protest https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-... Prior to the coronation the Met Police tweeted: > Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. > We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration. https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1653745710724968448 https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1653745710724968448 Again, this has been seen as further moves by the Met to quash the right of protest in the UK.
- nailer 3y ago
  The right to protest is important, but there's a different between disruption and protest that I feel you're overlooking. > Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. > We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration. This sounds like you'll be arrested if you leap in front of the motorcade, scream something in church, etc. Not if you carry a sign protesting the monarch along the route
  - swores 3y ago
    And yet... people were arrested for having signs along the route. The police don't deserve any benefit of the doubt that you're trying to give them.
    - jonatron 3y ago
      There is more detail of the Met's version of events here: https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 (or https://nitter.nl/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 https://nitter.nl/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 )
frankfrankfrank 3y ago
Authoritarianism has clearly been feeling its way into the UK ever since the 90s when they put up CCTV cameras everywhere. The UK effectively has an inherently and self-evidently illegitimate government based on its own actions and words, as do most western governments at this point. These types of bills/laws are those of authoritarian governments fearful of its own population wising up to what has happened or what the authoritarians are up to and they want to make sure they can snuff out any little bit of burgeoning opposition before it can organize and get off the ground. It’s the repression part of 1984 style government. It’s the same thing all authoritarian, evil governments do, regardless of how long they can get away with it or how much the brainwashed masses go along with it, even if just out of fear.
- 1827163 3y ago
  Yes, when you think about it on a fundamental level, having so many CCTV cameras recording people's movements everywhere is absolutely dystopian. It's incredible that it got this bad and there wasn't a backlash against it from the general public. The presence of the cameras is a marker for what's going wrong with government and society. That the state is imposing the surveillance on us. And the people happen to tolerate it. It has the potential to get worse, the Police are rolling out facial recognition, but by that time I will have left the UK for good, due to our civil liberties situation, in particular the forced encryption key disclosure laws. I wonder if those cameras will ever go away. How long is it going to take, 20 years, 50 years, or even more? When are we going to get our public spaces back? So we can be ourselves, be spontaneous, silly, eccentric, protest and so on, without experiencing the psychological effects of pervasive recording by the state. And thus the chilling effects.
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    > The presence of the cameras is a marker for what's going wrong with government and society. That the state is imposing the surveillance on us. I'll point out that the vast, vast majority of the UK's CCTV cameras are privately owned and installed, not connected together, but having worked in retail positions, an awful lot of them aren't even working or turned on and used soley for deterrance. Like, going by this: https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in-london/ https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in... (which may or may not be accurate, looks like they did their work on it), cameras controlled by the Metropolitan Police, local councils and TfL come to less than 10% of the total. Blame insurance companies, not the state.
vrglvrglvrgl 3y ago
[dead]
racktash 3y ago
There's definitely a balance to be struck between allowing protests to take place and also preventing a minority of protestors disrupting the lives of ordinary people. For instance – I worked in Belfast while a series of flag protests took place (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_City_Hall_flag_protests https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_City_Hall_flag_prote...) in 2012. In my view, these protestors had every right to make their views publicly visible and known. But when they organised "rings of steel" around the city, preventing drivers from coming and going about their business, as they did on a few occasions, they had gone too far. I don't know the full details of the anti-monarchist arrests, but unless they were planning to disrupt the events, I feel they should not have been arrested.
- stefan_ 3y ago
  What a bizarre thing to say. You think the whole monarchist party thing didn't "disrupt" anyone?
  - racktash 3y ago
    I hear what you're saying. But I would argue that the Cornoation is an important public ceremony / event with every right to go ahead. It's the same as when a foreign head of state visits and the police cordon off the roads for security. In my view, this is different to pressure or protest groups disrupting traffic or public events. If President Biden visits the UK, people should not be able to stop his going about a state visit. But they should be allowed to protest with banners and so on if they so wish.
    - trasz4 3y ago
      I'd argue a coronation is just another show. Royalty are a pest, they don't have any important social function; interfering with them should be fine. Same with presidents and whatnot. They can do their jobs without all that theatre.
- _s 3y ago
  Protesting itself is meant to be disruptive though - otherwise what's the point? You can stand around in a group in a fenced off corner and make some noise and no one will care. You can annoy people, disrupt a small part of their lives and suddenly they will have an opinion on what you are protesting about, but also an opinion on what protesting should be. Disruptive protests do eventually change the little part of the world around you, for better or worse.
bjoli 3y ago
Is there any country in Europe not passing authoritarian laws? In Sweden the current government is on its way to defund the largest opposition party. The swedish riksdag recebtly (with broad support) changed the constitution to limit the freedom of speech. Poland and Hungary are shitfests, with almost complete political control of the justice system. Spain has increased the ability to give large civil fines, seemingly disconnected from the regular juridical process (please correct me on this one. My Spanish is sub-par). Edit: my poland name-calling was apparently uncalled for. There are other bad things going on, with Kaczyński at the rudder.
- 988747 3y ago
  > Poland and Hungary are shitfests, with almost complete political control of the justice system. That's not exactly true, Poland is a country where most of the judges are basically in open rebellion against the current government, and the government can't do shit about it.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  It's just the trend of government. First there is chaos which sheds all law and order and supplants it with something else. Then it trends towards authoritarianism. Simple as that. Best case scenario is the trend is slow and a little of that chaos keeps it in check for a while. It's a cliche at this point but this reality is what the American constitution was designed to combat.
  - bjoli 3y ago
    Why is it a tendency of government? In most instances I see it as a result of laws passed by democratically elected representatives.
- Xelbair 3y ago
  >Poland and Hungary are shitfests, with almost complete political control of the justice system. Not really true in Poland. They kinda tried to take it over from other political side, but failed, hard. What's worst is that Polish justice system is, and always was, a shitshow in general - judges have deadlines, but no penalties for ignoring them... and they are only judged by other judges. Complaining can get your case stonewalled, and there are plenty of catch-22 situations where you can't do anything. And what current ruling party incompetently did basically destroyed any chances of that changing in next 10-20 years, or more. Gross incompetence is the theme of current government.
easytiger 3y ago
There is another way to look at it. In a time of increasing idleness and voluntary economic non participation by wider and wider sections of society, as their existence is subsidised by the state, by other tax payers, by ex husbands... and in the case of XR&JSO, by donations there might be a need for change. They have discovered that a handful of people can cause misery to thousands by blocking roads, already an offence, but one selectively enforced when it intersects with so called protest due to court precedent set in recent years. These groups often have no particular goals that they articulate, no achievable ones in particular and it cannot be assumed that their stated goals are their goals. I believe i have insight as to their motivations and goals and they don't align with the ephemeral nonsense they claim they want to happen. It wouldn't make sense to do so. On that basis this isn't legitimate protest - it's low level terrorism. If you have to live in proximity to this near endless lunacy it is obvious how ridiculous it has become. How much of society will you allow to be interrupted before enough is enough? XR/JSO ran for election in London very recently for Mayor - the city they attack the most - and got fewer votes than a comedy candidate called Count Binface.
- garbagewoman 3y ago
  Have you tried talking to someone?
  - easytiger 3y ago
    What a quality rebuttal
    - account42 3y ago
      It's at least more coherent than what you wrote.
      - easytiger 3y ago
        Is there something specific with which you had an issue?
  - 3y ago
heywherelogingo 3y ago
The West has been going wrong for years now - UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, USA - all turning into dysfunctional dystopian police states.
kypro 3y ago
The most frustrating thing for me is that whenever you talk to people in the UK about this stuff you notice there is this cultural attitude that if you're sticking your neck out too much that its somehow your fault. People here don't care about being monitored by CCTV because they believe that so long as you keep your head down you'll be fine – and that any respectable person is going to keep their head down anyway. You'll also find a lot of people here just dislike the act of protest in general. Again, I think it's because protest involves drawing attention to yourself which a large percentage of people here dislike on an instinctive level. So you find even the most agreeable protests seem to receive some level of pushback and shame which I think bleeds into our attitude towards policing. That said, I don't know what it's like in other countries. I just get the sense that the UK has a much more conformist attitude which enables the state to take a more authoritarian approach to policing protest here. As an example, I'm not an anti-monarch but I was extremely angry about how the police handled anti-monarch protestors during the coronation. Yet when I've spoken to people about this over the weekend, most people have expressed to me that it was rude for there to be protestors at the coronation... But that's the point of protest!! Still, this doesn't change the fact that the act of protest is largely incompatible with our otherwise polite and conformist culture.
- sirsinsalot 3y ago
  Who on earth are "most people" to you? Is this the south of England? In my experience, anyone north of Birmingham holds the opposite attitude.
  - ChrisKnott 3y ago
    Your experience is not representative - https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/72bpekq9nm/Internal_RoyalTrackers_230426_W.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/72bpekq9nm/Internal_RoyalTracker...
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > rude to for there to be protestors at the coronation Many monarchists are offended by republican views. For that reason alone, I would have recommended against a republican demonstration in the middle of a large crowd of monarchists (if I'd been asked!) Also, I don't think republicanism is very widespread among cops, a group of people that tend to have an authoritarian mindset. I think some people have a sense that the monarchy "is theirs", as if this hyper-privileged family were their own children. I didn't watch any of the coronation coverage on purpose, but it's been devliishly difficult to avoid. Something that struck me is that many of the most ardent monarchists in the crowd seemed to be yanks and aussies. I find that really weird.
switch007 3y ago
The Home Sec will take the chief’s disapproval as a good thing!
sirsinsalot 3y ago
Between the Public Order Bill and the Online Safety Bill ... the UK is on a slippery slope and is greasing its own feet.
Eumenes 3y ago
Pretty much expected from a country with a monarch
sirsinsalot 3y ago
Don't forget, in the UK, you legally must notify the police of any march or protest. The police can then say no, change where you protest, or impose any other condition[1] And yet we decry the way China handled protests in Hong Kong. The UK population are blindly walking into deeper in to the dark ... but hey, as long as the McDonald's drive-thru is has milkshakes there's no problem? [1]: https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-know https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-k...
- niea_11 3y ago
  Same in france : https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F21899?lang=en https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F21899?...
- shellac 3y ago
  > [...] you legally must notify the police of any march or protest. March, not protest. From your own source: > If there’s no march organised as part of your protest, you do not have to tell the police. On the few occasions I've organised protests I did inform them, because although they didn't really care about protests they don't like surprises.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Not in the UK, but I once organized a protest. I talked to the police beforehand. Their questions were very interesting: "Where? When? How many people? Will you have signs? Will the signs be on poles? What will the poles be made out of, and how thick will they be?" They didn't care about the act of protest, or about the content of the protest. They cared about the potential for sign poles to be used as clubs - about the potential for it to turn violent. I must say, I think that's legitimately a concern for the police.
    - sirsinsalot 3y ago
      I'm sure 90%+ cases are legitimate concerns and even handed enforcement. The issue is the legislation doesn't specify those things and just allows control of protests for basically any reason at the discretion of the police. The police are not equipped to make those societal decisions IMHO, and the legislation is far far too loose. Incidentally, the times when the legislation is abused tends to be the times when it matters greatly that it isn't.
nprateem 3y ago
It was blatently obvious the police were going to release the Republic protestors without charge, even if they have to pay them compensation. The Establishment didn't want anyone questioning their relevance. If this wasn't the case the BBC would have reported these arrests on Saturday. One simple bullshit apology later and they have plausible deniability. "Oh, we'll learn a lesson for next time Charles has a coronation"
jbu 3y ago
There was a fascinating(!) thread here https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/1655555277150732290 https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/165555527715073229... with a longer story: Right-wing "English Constitution Party" were going to demonstrate with rape alarms (https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/1655555314215780352 https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/165555531421578035...) and that got 'confused' in the more rabid press as 'eco-zealots' plot' sort of stuff. The Met decided they needed to be seen to act to remove the "dangerous" rape alarms, but the easiest way to do that was to arrest these poor folks (https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/1655616449375875094 https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/165561644937587509...). The police knew they knew were around and had rape alarms because that's their job and the police gave them the alarms. Anyhoo, the rabid press, the deeply populist government, and the disgraced met police (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65164489 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65164489) are quite a mix.
andyjohnson0 3y ago
Interesting perspective from Joshua Rozenberg, a fairly well-known legal commentator in the UK: "The Public Order Act 2023 was passed by parliament exactly a week ago, on 2 May. Regulations were made that day by a Home Office minister bringing sections 1 and 2 — as well as several other sections — into force a day later, on 3 May. "This is unusual for new criminal offences. A couple of months is usually allowed for the Home Office to issue a circular explaining how the new offence is to be used. Those at risk of committing the new offence — people who carry bicycle locks, for example — can learn how the law has changed and seek legal advice. Police forces have time to train their officers. Police lawyers might regard items that can easily be cut — luggage straps or cable-ties, for example — as not capable of leading to serious disruption. "Only a day’s notice was given on this occasion, presumably so that the new law could be used against anyone intending to disrupt the Coronation. Home Office officials apparently wrote to demonstrators but it is not surprising that the subtleties of the new law did not filter down to front-line police in time." [1] I'm absolutely not a supporter of the current UK government, and I think the met police are pretty incompetent when they're not being corrupt, but the above may partly explain some the weekend's events wrt protest. (Personally I think its a bad law, created for authoritarian purposes, rushed into effect, and incompetently implemented by police who seem only too happy to protect the interests of the state over the freedom of citizens.) [1] https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/police-regret-anti-monarchy-arrests https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/police-regret-anti-monarchy...
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  Everything you quoted makes it sound like an overtly anti-freedom power grab meant to meet a minimum of resistance, and implemented specifically to control protestors at an event that was planned for months. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "I'm not a supporter of the current government BUT" - it seems like the quote explains perfectly how bad it is.
  - andyjohnson0 3y ago
    > Everything you quoted makes it sound like an overtly anti-freedom power grab meant to meet a minimum of resistance, and implemented specifically to control protestors at an event that was planned for months. I agree that that is the government's intention. I'm not sure the police are that smart. > I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "I'm not a supporter of the current government BUT" - it seems like the quote explains perfectly how bad it is. In pointing to a commentary that hypothesises that the rapid introduction of the legal powers may partly explain the police's heavy-handed behaviour, I'm not trying to excuse either the govt or the police. The may be multiple factors at work here: government authoritarianism, police complicity with that authoritarianism, and also police confusion.
RocketOne 3y ago
The UK has been watching Canada. Our Prime Minister had people's bank accounts frozen and their vehicles impounded and hundreds charged with mischief for attending a peaceful, albeit 3 week long protest in our capital. There was NO violence, no vandalism, no injuries and certainly no deaths and yet our PM chose to use the strongest law in the land, the one reserved for emergency situations like invasion or nuclear attack, to lock down protesters. Their primary crime was being too loud and too long. Democracy is dying by a thousand cuts. Utterly unacceptable!
xbar 3y ago
Cheers, UK. I suppose one visit was sufficient.
livinglist 3y ago
There’s a similar crime in China called “Picking quarrels and provoking trouble”, it’s definition is so vague that the law enforcement has been abusing it and locking up whoever they want (especially those who go against CCP) for picking quarrels and provoking troubles… a very popular personality (Luo Xiang) who has been well known in China for spreading legal knowledge on Chinese social media was shadow banned due to him urging online the government to amend the law and get rid of this crime.
- livinglist 3y ago
  For those who r interested: https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003420 https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003420
steve76 3y ago
[dead]

376 points by BerislavLopac 3y ago

[dead]

I'm conflicted because there are parts of this bill that are awful and massively chilling to free speech, but also within it are provisions to make the areas directly outside abortion clinics free from harassment by anti-choice groups.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Serenacula 3y ago
I've not heard about that being a big issue here on the first place, and it absolutely doesn't justify the blatant dismantling of our democracy. They've been gradually pushing fascist laws into place for years, this is just the latest in a long stream. I honestly don't understand why nobody seems more concerned about stuff like this.
- Aromasin 3y ago
  Political apathy is at an all time low in the UK it feels like. We've had political upheaval after upheaval in the last 10-15 years, be it Brexit, Covid-19, Tory Austerity, the Coalition government, rising Scottish Independence sentiments, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and Truss almost singlehandedly rocketing inflation to something we haven't seen since the financial crisis in the early 2000's. People are exhausted by a never-ending parade of scandals. The conservative government should have been out in 2019, but were saved by having a socialist, Corbyn led opposition party that did not resonate with any of their centrist Blairite voter base. Labour crumbled into infighting, and the Conservatives swept up another 48 seats. Most people just want to keep their heads down and make it through this period of financial uncertainty, waiting out until the next general election so they can oust the Conservatives. Of course the Tories are going to try and sneak in as much abhorrent policy as they can in the time they have left.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >Political apathy is at an all time low in the UK it feels like. Do you mean all time high? "Apathy" means a "lack of interest or concern"[1], so "all time low lack of interest or concern" would suggest political interest is at an all time high due to double negatives ("low lack"). [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apathy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apathy
    - stareatgoats 3y ago
      It's not hard to understand what they meant.
    - Aromasin 3y ago
      I did mean all time high. A simple word slip.
  - okeuro49 3y ago
    > Of course the Tories are going to try and sneak in as much abhorrent policy as they can in the time they have left. Labour have been captured by the fringe outside of its own party, so I don't have much hopes for Labour over the Tories.
    - dagw 3y ago
      Labour have been captured by the fringe outside of its own party I hear this a lot from a lot of people in and around the Labour Party, but no one seems to agree on who is 'inside' and who is 'outside'. Which fringe are you referring to? The "Blairite" fringe or the "Corbynista" fringe.
  - gadders 3y ago
    Truss was in power in September/October and only put inflation up 0.5% https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi The problem with the Tories is that they have imposed some of the highest levels of personal taxation ever seen. If the Conservatives are not a low tax party, then they lose their whole purpose and we get the Labour-lite Davos-man bunch of incompetents we have now.
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  > I've not heard about that being a big issue here on the first place, and it absolutely doesn't justify the blatant dismantling of our democracy. As someone who lives within walking distance of an abortion clinic, I can say that it is a very serious issue and money is pouring in to anti-choice groups in the UK.
fqyzj 3y ago
Not being able to demonstrate outside an abortion clinic is also a free speech issue.
- krapp 3y ago
  So is me not being able to demonstrate inside your house. That free speech can be limited by the right of free association, private property and public safety needs has been an established principle for centuries. And if anti-abortionists can demonstrate elsewhere, which they can and do, it isn't much of an issue. It's not as if the pro-life camp is at risk of not having their views heard if they can't block the doors to abortion clinics and call women whores and killers right to their faces.
  - fqyzj 3y ago
    >So is me not being able to demonstrate inside your house. That is quite the movement of goalposts. "Outside an abortion clinic" is by definition a public space. Inside my house is not a public space. Demonstrating in a public space should be protected as free speech.
    - krapp 3y ago
      I think you moved the goalposts from making a broad argument about free speech to now a narrow argument about property rights. Now maybe try to address my actual point, which is that no rights are absolute and always need to be balanced in context against other rights and public safety.
      - fqyzj 3y ago
        I did: >Demonstrating in a public space should be protected as free speech. That, for me, is an absolute. Demonstrating doesn't include blocking a highway or not allowing entrance to such clinic. Not even touching a client or worker. But staying there? Yes of course it should be protected.
  - causality0 3y ago
robbick 3y ago
But isn't that how they get you? By lumping in some common sense good stuff with some dystopian crap. If they really wanted to fix the issue at abortion clinics they could have done that in a small quick bill. It is a smaller scale version of the cameron government that cut everything to the bone, but they legalised gay marriage (though needed labour votes to actually get it done) so they aren't the bad guys, right? (obviously that was separate bills but I think the point works on a larger scale too)
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  For sure, I totally agree. Right now though, we have these protections and if they repeal (which they should), I hope they leave those protections in place.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
superchroma 3y ago
Nobody asked for overloaded bills. The appropriate change is to unbundle the mixed bag of policy and do it properly piece by piece.
substation13 3y ago
We can't let this "bundling" of laws allow things to slip though the net. The solution is to make a new bill with the good parts.
_joel 3y ago
How much of an issue is that in the UK? I don't think I've seen a report about it here for years, but that's not to say it doesn't happen. I'd be interested to see facts to back up this.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/02/us-anti-abortion-groups-uk-far-right https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/02/us-anti-aborti... Search for UK abortion clinic news. No it's no where near as bad as what happens in the US but it has been getting worse.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  Somewhat. It's nowhere near the scale of the problem that the US had say ten years ago, but for some individuals it's definitely intimidating. The laws already on the books made it possible to secure orders to make a group stop for example, congregating outside your clinic harassing patients, but this power is very limited, it's local (so if your local politicians aren't supportive, too bad, even if they aren't actively working against you chances are you'll never get it up the agenda far enough to actually get a legal order without their support) and it expires - and so you end up with a situation where lots of places would like to get an order, but few secure one, and then when they do local budget constraints make it hard to justify keeping it - after all the harassment is gone, and we could use that cash to do something else. The ideal would be to live in a society where people didn't feel like screaming "murderer" at strangers and lying to as many people as possible was a reasonable social activity.
logicchains 3y ago
>within it are provisions to make the areas directly outside abortion clinics free from harassment by religious fanatics. Do they also prevent pro-abortion fanatics from demonstrating outside churches and the offices of anti-abortion lawmakers?
- smcl 3y ago
  Why on Earth would they do that? Is there a big problem with "pro-abortion fanatics" trying to stop people having access to healthcare?
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Interestingly, the FACE Act in these United States ("Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances") provides equal protection to crisis pregnancy centers and other related pro-life clinics and counseling offices. The definition used by FACE covers pro-life and pro-abortion facilities alike, and so all types of pregnancy centers have the same buffer around them, protected from fanatics who would harrass vulnerable mothers who are about to make a momentous choice which affects them, their children, the father, and their whole family.
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
You wrote the same sentence twice.
Sharlin 3y ago
Is harassment by religious fanatics right outside abortion clinics actually a problem anywhere in the West but the US? Europe doesn't really have the US-type fundamental evangelical movements at all, and Catholics are for the most part a pretty chill bunch.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  Yes, it's not as bad but there are still loons in the UK hassling every woman who goes to the clinics.
- SilverBirch 3y ago
  A massive problem with political issues in the UK is that the US constantly tries to export their bullshit to us. So yes, unfortunately there is a problem with it - although no where near the scale of the US. There's also a problem that failed politicians on the far right in the UK can essentially fund their entire political projects with support from US interests trying to push us further right.
  - Sharlin 3y ago
    Ah, should have realized :/
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Ditto Canada. Even worse by proximity, in some ways. Worse still as the UK used to be the foil.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > A massive problem with political issues in the UK is that the US constantly tries to export their bullshit to us. How does the US try to export their bullshit to the UK?
    - easytiger 3y ago
      By sharing the anglosphere
    - 3y ago
Veen 3y ago
Isn't it annoying how hard it is to ban behaviour you don't like without risking banning behaviour you approve of. What's a progressive authoritarian to do?
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  It's not that simple. They haven't been banned, they've been moved 100m down the road from outside the doors of the clinic. A very fair, and reasonable compromise I feel.
  - dataduck 3y ago
    Would it be fair to allow anti-monarchy protesters to protest only 100m from anyone celbrating the coronation?
    - silasdavis 3y ago
      Surely 100 yards would be more appropriate
    - flumpcakes 3y ago
      I think there's a difference between protesting an event and protesting individuals seeking medical help.
okeuro49 3y ago
> areas directly outside abortion clinics free from harassment by religious fanatics There are some videos of "religious fanatics" standing alone, silently, outside abortion clinics, being moved on by police, on the suspicion that they are praying in their minds. You can't really pick and choose which views are acceptable. Either you have the right to protest peacefully, guided by your own conscience, or you don't.
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  It's not that simple. They are allowed to protest and have a protected right to do so; 100m down the road, where they cannot harass vulnerable women. That's the law, and I hope it stays that way.
tjpnz 3y ago
If you want freedom of speech you must also be prepared to defend it for everyone.
pookha 3y ago
I'm not conflicted at all...I fully stand in support of people I disagree with having the right to voice their minds in public without having to worry about government security forces and patty wagons.
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  And I stand fully in support of proportionate curbs on freedom of speech for people determined to enforce their religious views on others in a harassing manner.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Praying silently in one's head is "harassment"? [0][1][2] [0] https://adf.uk/parliament-introduces-thought-crime/ https://adf.uk/parliament-introduces-thought-crime/ [1] https://aleteia.org/2023/03/09/pray-get-arrested-repeat-uk-woman-charged-for-silent-prayer-again/ https://aleteia.org/2023/03/09/pray-get-arrested-repeat-uk-w... [2] https://aleteia.org/2022/12/24/uk-woman-arrested-for-silent-prayer-outside-english-abortion-clinic/ https://aleteia.org/2022/12/24/uk-woman-arrested-for-silent-...
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  Yes. I live near where this woman protests. Those sources you've provided are clearly biased and very inaccurate. She was arrested after breaching a protection order in that particular space after being repeatedly warned not to and being given the chance to move 100m up the street. She chose not to, and was arrested. ADF in particular are not nice people. In 2003 they even tried to recriminalise homosexuality in the US.[1] Speaking as a local resident who has to put up with her group taking up space, disrupting locals and during the pandemic flanking the outside of the abortion clinic with their faces covered, I think they should move 100m up the road where their impact is limited but they can offer whatever "help" they want to people who seek it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom#Opposition_to_LGBTQ_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom#Opp...
barry-cotter 3y ago
This is satire, right? You’re not actually saying you’re in favour of free speech and then in the same sentence supporting suppression of speech you dislike.
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  Yes, I am. Because the world is not black and white and outside of the US, free speech is not absolute. In some countries, your right to to access abortion trumps someone elses right to stand outside and make you feel bad about it. I'm OK with that. As are the majority of folks in the UK.

sofixa 3y ago

Honestly it's pretty scary how easy it is to pass such legislation in the UK. That's what happens when there's no written concise framework of government but centuries of "tradition" and "precedent" that are improvised upon, and which have no special threshold of change (e.g. to change the constitution in some countries requires a special assembly, or qualified majority, or plebiscite, etc.).

thinkingemote 3y ago
Legislation can be passed but there are still some checks in the legislature. Takes time though but there's examples where the judges have deemed a law unlawful. Usually based on common law basis. With this law I'd say that all of what it's trying to address is already covered by existing laws. For example, harassment in public spaces is already illegal.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > Usually based on common law basis Oh, that's a great basis. Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century and a judge decided whatever, how very useful as a legal base upon which to decide modern things. (Like that story which is the basis of contract law about some ships a couple of centuries ago). It's quite sad how obsolete and overcomplicated for no reason whatsoever (as in, to understand a case today, you have to go dig up precedents going back centuries to understand how they might impact this case; no wonder there's entire professions, software, AI assistants to help lawyers navigate this quagmire) common law is, and how countries have stuck with it.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century I think the point of "common law" is that the precedents describe laws that people basically understand, and they expect that what governs their behaviour now is the law they understand. Statute law, especially modern statute law, tends to be a mess of exceptions, definitions and cross-references. It's all legalese, and only an expert can understand it. Plus, it's all subject to intepretation by the courts, so precedent affects statute law as well as common law. And unlike statutes, most court precedents aren't publicly accessible, unless you have access to a law library or Westlaw. If you expect people to obey the law, then you need to express it in ways that people can understand. If they don't know what the law is, you can't expect them to comply. One of the nice things about the US constitution is that it's mostly written in fairly plain English. I suppose that might be why many non-Americans admire it. One of the nastiest things about it, though, is that its so damned difficult to change.

mixtur2021 3y ago

Another side of this story: https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/17/thousands-condemn-extinction-rebellion-road-blocks-stop-ambulances-getting-12256369/ https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/17/thousands-condemn-extinction-... This feels like a partisan hatchet job. There is a balance. Freedom of protest does not give the right to perpetually block roads and motorways putting protestors and others into danger. This organisation had no issue with governments imposing multi year lockdowns without any form of criticism.

_joel 3y ago
There was already a degree of legistlation in place to tackle this and when did we have "multi-year" lockdowns. Come on now.
- darepublic 3y ago
  Referring to COVID I think
  - _joel 3y ago
    Sure, they weren't 'multi-year' though they cumulatively were months, not years. It's disengenous to say multi-year and reeks of another agenda imho.
- happymellon 3y ago
  Are you referring to the couple of months in 2020? Because we didn't really have any sort of lock down in the UK, the Tories just said the police would need to informally enforce a non-rule. The met responded that they were not going to enforce anything that wasn't an actual rule. There were words said and a couple of high profile incidents which shows how little any sort of lockdown happened. I know I drove around the country still and no one ever asked why, and all my neighbours had garden parties with social gathers still happening.
  - hanoz 3y ago
    You broke the law and got away with it. That doesn't mean millions of people weren't having a thoroughly miserable time of it observing the law, and for a lot longer than "a couple of months in 2020".

xeyownt 3y ago

"Super powers will become super tyrannies" -- Apocalypse, John (in some parallel universe not far from ours)

hulitu 3y ago

> UN Human Rights Chief Urges UK to Reverse ‘Deeply Troubling’ Public Order Bill I'm sure it is a mistake. He surely meant China. /s

Randomizer42 3y ago
Bingo!
- biofox 3y ago
  It's harder to criticise someone when they're less receptive to criticism.

samwillis 3y ago

For little extra context here (for anyone not in the UK), since the OP article was published we had the coronation at the weekend during which many anti-monarchy protestors were arrested - despite prior approval and communication with the Police ahead of the protest. This has been seen as the first major use of these new powers: > Police accused of ‘alarming’ attack on protest rights after anti-monarchist leader arrested https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-leading-anti-monarchy-group-arrested-at-coronation-protest https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/06/head-of-uks-... Prior to the coronation the Met Police tweeted: > Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. > We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration. https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1653745710724968448 https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1653745710724968448 Again, this has been seen as further moves by the Met to quash the right of protest in the UK.

nailer 3y ago
The right to protest is important, but there's a different between disruption and protest that I feel you're overlooking. > Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low. > We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration. This sounds like you'll be arrested if you leap in front of the motorcade, scream something in church, etc. Not if you carry a sign protesting the monarch along the route
- swores 3y ago
  And yet... people were arrested for having signs along the route. The police don't deserve any benefit of the doubt that you're trying to give them.
  - jonatron 3y ago
    There is more detail of the Met's version of events here: https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 (or https://nitter.nl/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 https://nitter.nl/metpoliceuk/status/1655665841575174145 )

frankfrankfrank 3y ago

Authoritarianism has clearly been feeling its way into the UK ever since the 90s when they put up CCTV cameras everywhere. The UK effectively has an inherently and self-evidently illegitimate government based on its own actions and words, as do most western governments at this point. These types of bills/laws are those of authoritarian governments fearful of its own population wising up to what has happened or what the authoritarians are up to and they want to make sure they can snuff out any little bit of burgeoning opposition before it can organize and get off the ground. It’s the repression part of 1984 style government. It’s the same thing all authoritarian, evil governments do, regardless of how long they can get away with it or how much the brainwashed masses go along with it, even if just out of fear.

1827163 3y ago
Yes, when you think about it on a fundamental level, having so many CCTV cameras recording people's movements everywhere is absolutely dystopian. It's incredible that it got this bad and there wasn't a backlash against it from the general public. The presence of the cameras is a marker for what's going wrong with government and society. That the state is imposing the surveillance on us. And the people happen to tolerate it. It has the potential to get worse, the Police are rolling out facial recognition, but by that time I will have left the UK for good, due to our civil liberties situation, in particular the forced encryption key disclosure laws. I wonder if those cameras will ever go away. How long is it going to take, 20 years, 50 years, or even more? When are we going to get our public spaces back? So we can be ourselves, be spontaneous, silly, eccentric, protest and so on, without experiencing the psychological effects of pervasive recording by the state. And thus the chilling effects.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  > The presence of the cameras is a marker for what's going wrong with government and society. That the state is imposing the surveillance on us. I'll point out that the vast, vast majority of the UK's CCTV cameras are privately owned and installed, not connected together, but having worked in retail positions, an awful lot of them aren't even working or turned on and used soley for deterrance. Like, going by this: https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in-london/ https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in... (which may or may not be accurate, looks like they did their work on it), cameras controlled by the Metropolitan Police, local councils and TfL come to less than 10% of the total. Blame insurance companies, not the state.

vrglvrglvrgl 3y ago

[dead]

racktash 3y ago

There's definitely a balance to be struck between allowing protests to take place and also preventing a minority of protestors disrupting the lives of ordinary people. For instance – I worked in Belfast while a series of flag protests took place (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_City_Hall_flag_protests https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_City_Hall_flag_prote...) in 2012. In my view, these protestors had every right to make their views publicly visible and known. But when they organised "rings of steel" around the city, preventing drivers from coming and going about their business, as they did on a few occasions, they had gone too far. I don't know the full details of the anti-monarchist arrests, but unless they were planning to disrupt the events, I feel they should not have been arrested.

stefan_ 3y ago
What a bizarre thing to say. You think the whole monarchist party thing didn't "disrupt" anyone?
- racktash 3y ago
  I hear what you're saying. But I would argue that the Cornoation is an important public ceremony / event with every right to go ahead. It's the same as when a foreign head of state visits and the police cordon off the roads for security. In my view, this is different to pressure or protest groups disrupting traffic or public events. If President Biden visits the UK, people should not be able to stop his going about a state visit. But they should be allowed to protest with banners and so on if they so wish.
  - trasz4 3y ago
    I'd argue a coronation is just another show. Royalty are a pest, they don't have any important social function; interfering with them should be fine. Same with presidents and whatnot. They can do their jobs without all that theatre.
_s 3y ago
Protesting itself is meant to be disruptive though - otherwise what's the point? You can stand around in a group in a fenced off corner and make some noise and no one will care. You can annoy people, disrupt a small part of their lives and suddenly they will have an opinion on what you are protesting about, but also an opinion on what protesting should be. Disruptive protests do eventually change the little part of the world around you, for better or worse.

bjoli 3y ago

Is there any country in Europe not passing authoritarian laws? In Sweden the current government is on its way to defund the largest opposition party. The swedish riksdag recebtly (with broad support) changed the constitution to limit the freedom of speech. Poland and Hungary are shitfests, with almost complete political control of the justice system. Spain has increased the ability to give large civil fines, seemingly disconnected from the regular juridical process (please correct me on this one. My Spanish is sub-par). Edit: my poland name-calling was apparently uncalled for. There are other bad things going on, with Kaczyński at the rudder.

988747 3y ago
> Poland and Hungary are shitfests, with almost complete political control of the justice system. That's not exactly true, Poland is a country where most of the judges are basically in open rebellion against the current government, and the government can't do shit about it.
nonethewiser 3y ago
It's just the trend of government. First there is chaos which sheds all law and order and supplants it with something else. Then it trends towards authoritarianism. Simple as that. Best case scenario is the trend is slow and a little of that chaos keeps it in check for a while. It's a cliche at this point but this reality is what the American constitution was designed to combat.
- bjoli 3y ago
  Why is it a tendency of government? In most instances I see it as a result of laws passed by democratically elected representatives.
Xelbair 3y ago
>Poland and Hungary are shitfests, with almost complete political control of the justice system. Not really true in Poland. They kinda tried to take it over from other political side, but failed, hard. What's worst is that Polish justice system is, and always was, a shitshow in general - judges have deadlines, but no penalties for ignoring them... and they are only judged by other judges. Complaining can get your case stonewalled, and there are plenty of catch-22 situations where you can't do anything. And what current ruling party incompetently did basically destroyed any chances of that changing in next 10-20 years, or more. Gross incompetence is the theme of current government.

easytiger 3y ago

There is another way to look at it. In a time of increasing idleness and voluntary economic non participation by wider and wider sections of society, as their existence is subsidised by the state, by other tax payers, by ex husbands... and in the case of XR&JSO, by donations there might be a need for change. They have discovered that a handful of people can cause misery to thousands by blocking roads, already an offence, but one selectively enforced when it intersects with so called protest due to court precedent set in recent years. These groups often have no particular goals that they articulate, no achievable ones in particular and it cannot be assumed that their stated goals are their goals. I believe i have insight as to their motivations and goals and they don't align with the ephemeral nonsense they claim they want to happen. It wouldn't make sense to do so. On that basis this isn't legitimate protest - it's low level terrorism. If you have to live in proximity to this near endless lunacy it is obvious how ridiculous it has become. How much of society will you allow to be interrupted before enough is enough? XR/JSO ran for election in London very recently for Mayor - the city they attack the most - and got fewer votes than a comedy candidate called Count Binface.

garbagewoman 3y ago
Have you tried talking to someone?
- easytiger 3y ago
  What a quality rebuttal
  - account42 3y ago
    It's at least more coherent than what you wrote.
    - easytiger 3y ago
      Is there something specific with which you had an issue?
- 3y ago

heywherelogingo 3y ago

The West has been going wrong for years now - UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, USA - all turning into dysfunctional dystopian police states.

kypro 3y ago

The most frustrating thing for me is that whenever you talk to people in the UK about this stuff you notice there is this cultural attitude that if you're sticking your neck out too much that its somehow your fault. People here don't care about being monitored by CCTV because they believe that so long as you keep your head down you'll be fine – and that any respectable person is going to keep their head down anyway. You'll also find a lot of people here just dislike the act of protest in general. Again, I think it's because protest involves drawing attention to yourself which a large percentage of people here dislike on an instinctive level. So you find even the most agreeable protests seem to receive some level of pushback and shame which I think bleeds into our attitude towards policing. That said, I don't know what it's like in other countries. I just get the sense that the UK has a much more conformist attitude which enables the state to take a more authoritarian approach to policing protest here. As an example, I'm not an anti-monarch but I was extremely angry about how the police handled anti-monarch protestors during the coronation. Yet when I've spoken to people about this over the weekend, most people have expressed to me that it was rude for there to be protestors at the coronation... But that's the point of protest!! Still, this doesn't change the fact that the act of protest is largely incompatible with our otherwise polite and conformist culture.

sirsinsalot 3y ago
Who on earth are "most people" to you? Is this the south of England? In my experience, anyone north of Birmingham holds the opposite attitude.
- ChrisKnott 3y ago
  Your experience is not representative - https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/72bpekq9nm/Internal_RoyalTrackers_230426_W.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/72bpekq9nm/Internal_RoyalTracker...
denton-scratch 3y ago
> rude to for there to be protestors at the coronation Many monarchists are offended by republican views. For that reason alone, I would have recommended against a republican demonstration in the middle of a large crowd of monarchists (if I'd been asked!) Also, I don't think republicanism is very widespread among cops, a group of people that tend to have an authoritarian mindset. I think some people have a sense that the monarchy "is theirs", as if this hyper-privileged family were their own children. I didn't watch any of the coronation coverage on purpose, but it's been devliishly difficult to avoid. Something that struck me is that many of the most ardent monarchists in the crowd seemed to be yanks and aussies. I find that really weird.

switch007 3y ago

The Home Sec will take the chief’s disapproval as a good thing!

sirsinsalot 3y ago

Between the Public Order Bill and the Online Safety Bill ... the UK is on a slippery slope and is greasing its own feet.

Eumenes 3y ago

Pretty much expected from a country with a monarch

sirsinsalot 3y ago

Don't forget, in the UK, you legally must notify the police of any march or protest. The police can then say no, change where you protest, or impose any other condition[1] And yet we decry the way China handled protests in Hong Kong. The UK population are blindly walking into deeper in to the dark ... but hey, as long as the McDonald's drive-thru is has milkshakes there's no problem? [1]: https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-know https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-k...

niea_11 3y ago
Same in france : https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F21899?lang=en https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F21899?...
shellac 3y ago
> [...] you legally must notify the police of any march or protest. March, not protest. From your own source: > If there’s no march organised as part of your protest, you do not have to tell the police. On the few occasions I've organised protests I did inform them, because although they didn't really care about protests they don't like surprises.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Not in the UK, but I once organized a protest. I talked to the police beforehand. Their questions were very interesting: "Where? When? How many people? Will you have signs? Will the signs be on poles? What will the poles be made out of, and how thick will they be?" They didn't care about the act of protest, or about the content of the protest. They cared about the potential for sign poles to be used as clubs - about the potential for it to turn violent. I must say, I think that's legitimately a concern for the police.
  - sirsinsalot 3y ago
    I'm sure 90%+ cases are legitimate concerns and even handed enforcement. The issue is the legislation doesn't specify those things and just allows control of protests for basically any reason at the discretion of the police. The police are not equipped to make those societal decisions IMHO, and the legislation is far far too loose. Incidentally, the times when the legislation is abused tends to be the times when it matters greatly that it isn't.

nprateem 3y ago

It was blatently obvious the police were going to release the Republic protestors without charge, even if they have to pay them compensation. The Establishment didn't want anyone questioning their relevance. If this wasn't the case the BBC would have reported these arrests on Saturday. One simple bullshit apology later and they have plausible deniability. "Oh, we'll learn a lesson for next time Charles has a coronation"

jbu 3y ago

There was a fascinating(!) thread here https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/1655555277150732290 https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/165555527715073229... with a longer story: Right-wing "English Constitution Party" were going to demonstrate with rape alarms (https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/1655555314215780352 https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/165555531421578035...) and that got 'confused' in the more rabid press as 'eco-zealots' plot' sort of stuff. The Met decided they needed to be seen to act to remove the "dangerous" rape alarms, but the easiest way to do that was to arrest these poor folks (https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/1655616449375875094 https://twitter.com/ProfColinDavis/status/165561644937587509...). The police knew they knew were around and had rape alarms because that's their job and the police gave them the alarms. Anyhoo, the rabid press, the deeply populist government, and the disgraced met police (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65164489 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65164489) are quite a mix.

andyjohnson0 3y ago

Interesting perspective from Joshua Rozenberg, a fairly well-known legal commentator in the UK: "The Public Order Act 2023 was passed by parliament exactly a week ago, on 2 May. Regulations were made that day by a Home Office minister bringing sections 1 and 2 — as well as several other sections — into force a day later, on 3 May. "This is unusual for new criminal offences. A couple of months is usually allowed for the Home Office to issue a circular explaining how the new offence is to be used. Those at risk of committing the new offence — people who carry bicycle locks, for example — can learn how the law has changed and seek legal advice. Police forces have time to train their officers. Police lawyers might regard items that can easily be cut — luggage straps or cable-ties, for example — as not capable of leading to serious disruption. "Only a day’s notice was given on this occasion, presumably so that the new law could be used against anyone intending to disrupt the Coronation. Home Office officials apparently wrote to demonstrators but it is not surprising that the subtleties of the new law did not filter down to front-line police in time." [1] I'm absolutely not a supporter of the current UK government, and I think the met police are pretty incompetent when they're not being corrupt, but the above may partly explain some the weekend's events wrt protest. (Personally I think its a bad law, created for authoritarian purposes, rushed into effect, and incompetently implemented by police who seem only too happy to protect the interests of the state over the freedom of citizens.) [1] https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/police-regret-anti-monarchy-arrests https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/police-regret-anti-monarchy...

unethical_ban 3y ago
Everything you quoted makes it sound like an overtly anti-freedom power grab meant to meet a minimum of resistance, and implemented specifically to control protestors at an event that was planned for months. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "I'm not a supporter of the current government BUT" - it seems like the quote explains perfectly how bad it is.
- andyjohnson0 3y ago
  > Everything you quoted makes it sound like an overtly anti-freedom power grab meant to meet a minimum of resistance, and implemented specifically to control protestors at an event that was planned for months. I agree that that is the government's intention. I'm not sure the police are that smart. > I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "I'm not a supporter of the current government BUT" - it seems like the quote explains perfectly how bad it is. In pointing to a commentary that hypothesises that the rapid introduction of the legal powers may partly explain the police's heavy-handed behaviour, I'm not trying to excuse either the govt or the police. The may be multiple factors at work here: government authoritarianism, police complicity with that authoritarianism, and also police confusion.

RocketOne 3y ago

The UK has been watching Canada. Our Prime Minister had people's bank accounts frozen and their vehicles impounded and hundreds charged with mischief for attending a peaceful, albeit 3 week long protest in our capital. There was NO violence, no vandalism, no injuries and certainly no deaths and yet our PM chose to use the strongest law in the land, the one reserved for emergency situations like invasion or nuclear attack, to lock down protesters. Their primary crime was being too loud and too long. Democracy is dying by a thousand cuts. Utterly unacceptable!

xbar 3y ago

Cheers, UK. I suppose one visit was sufficient.

livinglist 3y ago

There’s a similar crime in China called “Picking quarrels and provoking trouble”, it’s definition is so vague that the law enforcement has been abusing it and locking up whoever they want (especially those who go against CCP) for picking quarrels and provoking troubles… a very popular personality (Luo Xiang) who has been well known in China for spreading legal knowledge on Chinese social media was shadow banned due to him urging online the government to amend the law and get rid of this crime.

livinglist 3y ago
For those who r interested: https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003420 https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003420

steve76 3y ago

[dead]