Defining bona fide protest
06 Jul 2010
Narrow definitions of a bona fide protester smack of Victorian ideals of the deserving poor — Index defends everyone’s right to protest, writes Jo Glanville
Brett Lock’s despair at Index’s lack of sophistication raises of one of the great ironies for free speech activists. Many of the landmark free speech cases have been fought in defence of individuals whose ideas, beliefs and attitudes are singularly unattractive. Take the famous Skokie case of the 1970s, when the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the right of neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish neighbourhood. Or the celebrated Oz trial of the same decade. The Oz Schoolkids issue which was prosecuted for obscenity could never be called great literature, but the ultimate success of the case was an important milestone in protecting the freedom of expression of all writers. It is the principle in these cases that matters and that needs defending.
Brian Haw may have some questionable beliefs, but his longstanding presence in Parliament Square became a symbol of protest and of the defence to the right to protest under the last government. Would our critics prefer that Index choose only the most deserving cases? How does one decide who is or isn’t a bona fide protester, worthy of the support of a free speech organisation? Rather than pick and choose the apparently desirable causes and victims, it’s important for Index to be consistent and defend Haw and the Democracy Village. New Labour brought in a chilling number of laws that infringed the right to protest — including the freedom to demonstrate around parliament, and the use of stop and search counter-terrorism legislation — and the coalition government’s commitment to repeal the restrictions around Westminster is to be applauded. The removal of Brian Haw at the state opening of parliament was therefore a worrying moment so early in the life of the new government.
As Bibi van der Zee pointed out in her piece for Index last week, the British have a long tradition of pitching their tents in protest — from Heathrow to road bypasses — on public and private land. And what could be a better spot for making your voice heard than opposite parliament? The legal argument around this case pitches the protesters’ right to free expression against the public’s rights and freedoms to access Parliament Square. But it is surely not the worthiness of the protesters’ cause that should be the central issue here.
Jo Glanville is editor of Index on Censorship and a member of the Ministry of Justice working party on libel reform
Talk about this story
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
« PAST EVENT: Mark Damazer, controller BBC Radio 4, in conversation with John Kampfner • China: Author threatened with imprisonment »
David T
You and Brett are not in disagreement. However, you are writing as if you are arguing against Brett, which you are not.
Brett’s argument is that Haw has a right to protest, as that term is usually understood. There are a whole range of activities that constitute protest – moving demonstrations, static demonstrations, leafleting, etc – which Haw can engage in.
However, what the right to protest does NOT give you is a right to do something that you have no independent right to do.
Haw has a right to stand on Parliament Green. It would violate his freedom of expression were he removed because, when standing there, he expressed the view that Morgan Tsvangeri’s wife was murdered by Freemasons.
Similarly, if Haw had a right to camp for 9 years on Parliament Green, it would be a violation of his freedom of expression, merely because he expressed the view that 9/11 was an “inside job”.
But the bottom line is this. Haw has no right to live like a tramp on Parliament Green for nine years, simply because he says that he is protesting.
So, in summary, this isn’t about the popularity of his cause. It is about whether freedom of expression also include freedom of camping.
Brett
Jo Glanville asks: “Would our critics prefer that Index choose only the most deserving cases? How does one decide who is or isn’t a bona fide protester, worthy of the support of a free speech organisation?”
I was in a queue at the bank the other day when a man wearing a sandwich board and speaking through a loudhailer entered, exhorting us to abandon our sinful ways. People, including myself, tolerated this for a minute or two smiling embarrassingly at each other until, much to our general relief, a bank security guard ushered him out.
Should I feel guilty for failing to protect this man’s freedom of expression and protest? Perhaps it can be arranged that he permanently be allowed to make his loud social observations and protestations known to customers of this shopping centre.
Will Index on Censorship be taking up his case?
David T
For example, this.
Let us say that there is a man who believes that he has been the subject of a great injustice, which IoC should be championing, as it has some marginal connection to freedom of expression.
Imagine that he feels tremendously aggrieved, not simply by the unfairness of the way that the world has treated him, but also at IoC’s failure to take his case up.
This man is a computer whizz. He finds that you have a security hole in your website. He uploads, onto your front page, a full account of the persecution to which he is subject. Now, when you click onto IoC’s website, the first thing you hear is loud music and flashing graphics, along with an exhortation to support this man’s case.
Does IoC remove this material from its website? Does it try to plug the security hole? If you fail, and the man repeatedly his material onto your website, do you call the police or try to get some form of injunction against him?
Brett
Does IoC remove this material from its website? Does it try to plug the security hole?
Perhaps he could be convinced to transfer his content to several pop-up windows which users could easily navigate past in order to get to the official IoC website. His audio content could continue to play in the background thoughout the site since it wouldn’t do to actually ‘silence him’ as such (too symbolic of censorious fascism).
That sounds like a reasonable compromise.
Tristan
Haw has no right to live like a tramp on Parliament Green for nine years, simply because he says that he is protesting.
Actually I think he probably does have a legal right. There is no law preventing him doing so, and under our nominally common law system things are illegal only if they are explicitly prohibited.
Many of us also argue he has a moral right to do so. It does sound like you don’t like him because he’s ‘like a tramp’ and because he has some questionable views.
As for the democracy village – I personally see no reason for them not to camp there. Its nominally public property, they weren’t damaging anything, they were letting people onto the square, they were peaceful.
A protest camp is a form of protest and they were actively protesting.
IoC is absolutely correct to defend their right to freedom of expression.
David T
No, there are laws against vagrancy which prevent tramps, and indeed non-tramps, from living on traffic islands.
David T
Here is a helpful guide to the legal right to camp in England and Wales:
http://www.go4awalk.com/ask/wildcamping3.php
As you’ll see, there is a right to camp in Dartmoor. Therefore, Brian Haw could legally live there for the next nine years.
Jo Glanville
Haw has no right to live like a tramp on Parliament Green for nine years, simply because he says that he is protesting
So while you stand up for the right to protest, you doubt that Haw is a genuine protester. What does he have to do to prove that he is a protester and not just abusing the right for the sake of a good campsite? Long-term protest on a site – both public and private – has quite a tradition in the UK. And it may require a tent. The camping is itself an integral part of the protest – that’s why it’s tricky to separate the two as a basis for demolishing Haw’s right to remain on Parliament Square.
Brett
Jo, if I were part of a group opposed to, let us say, the representation of gay people in movies, would you support my ‘right’ to camp in Leicester Square indefinitely and to erect banners and to shout through a loud-hailer?
David T
I don’t doubt that he is a “genuine protestor”. Of course, mentally ill tramps are able to protest about things that matter to them. The fact that they’re mentally ill tramps doesn’t mean that they are not protesting.
But here’s the crux of your point:
“The camping is itself an integral part of the protest”
So, your argument is that “living in a tent for nine years” is a particular form of expression that is protected.
I would be careful about going down this route. There are all sorts of forms of expressive conduct that you and I would not regard as protected. For example, I could not come to Index on Censorship’s office, urinate through your letter box, and then state that I was expressing the view that IoC was pissing all over the concept of freedom of expression.
That is because I have no independent right to urinate on your property.
I do have a right to tell people what I think, as Brian Haw does. As we’ve seen, Brian Haw also has a right to live in a tent on Dartmoor. He could, and should, combine the exercise of the two rights.
Dr Howard Fredrics
I, too, have the right to freedom of expression via a website that exposes wrongdoing of public officials using public documents, and satirical music-video works. Were I to have engaged in any untrue and therefore defamatory postings, I would be subject to an action of civil tort. But oh, no–instead, I have been criminally prosecuted, despite a police report indicating that the website contains nothing that could constitute harassment.
Why has IoC failed to speak out on behalf of my right to truthful expression? Could it be because it is afraid to stand up for those who might cause posh individuals to be held to account by the public? Is it merely content to stand for the rights of those whom are considered to not really represent a serious challenge to the established order?
Where is the outrage?
Perhaps the outrage can and should be felt and expressed at my trial, due to take place on 22-23 July at Kingston Magistrates Court.
See http://www.sirpeterscott.com for further details.