The right to protest is one of the most fundamental of human rights. As stated in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as well as the Human Rights Act 1998, everybody has got a right to attend peaceful demonstration and protest against issues they do not agree with. This right seems however to be under threat in light of recent legal developments.
Arab spring
Last year’s events in Tunisia, Syria, Egypt and Libya highlighted the importance of the right to protest in the countries’ pursuit of democracy. In the UK we seem to contrast these situations with the right to peaceful demonstrations in this country such as the teachers’ strike.
Limitations
2012 is an important year for the UK and London in particular; it is the year of the Olympics and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. An influx of tourists is expected and increased amount of public events presents an opportunity to make a stand by protesting against issues close to one’s heart in front of millions of spectators. It seems to be a good time to raise a debate as to the limitations of the right to protest. Some restraints were introduced by the Labour government by introducing ‘stop and search’ powers in zones designated by the police to prevent terrorism. Groups willing to protest must also provide information as to the location or route of the protest and expected numbers of participants (although the numbers went beyond expectations during the students’ protest in 2010). These measures may seem reasonable when a situation gets out of control however they have the potential of affecting the ‘real’ peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders. All that is required to arrest someone is presence at the scene of a protest that gets out of hand.
Kettling
Kettling is a relatively new tactic used by the police to control crowds during demonstrations. It involves the police forming a cordon, which moves to keep the crowd in a designated area, and forcing it to leave the area of protest or prevent it from moving. The debate and controversy that it causes evolves around the fact that innocent bystanders might get caught in the process. Controversial as it is, the tactic has been approved as lawful by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in March 2012 after being challenged on several occasions. The reason the issue was even brought to the European court was the case of Austin from 2001. Austin, as well as 3 other applicants, was part of the May Day demonstration. She was there as a protester, the other 3 just happened to work or shop in the area and spend their lunch break there. All of them were arrested and detained for about 7 hours without access to water, food or a toilet. The ruling was that there was no unjustified deprivation of liberty.
The future
The ECHR’s judgment demonstrates that in a modern society individuals may have to suffer injustice for the greater good of protecting the public as a whole. The question is where do the boundaries lie? How much injustice is too much and how do we balance the human rights of the individual against the human rights of the public? The UK courts have got an important task at hand as the case of Austin is not the first and not the last one to go through the court system of England and Wales. With the big events of 2012 approaching one can only hope that justice, whatever that might mean, will be done.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/01/right-to-protest-under-attack