David Fowler / Shutterstock.com

There are some fears that the funeral procession of Margaret Thatcher tomorrow could turn into a debacle of protest and arrest.

The Observer reported on Sunday that Commander Christine Jones, the police officer who will be in charge on the day, “warned” that police officers will have the power to arrest protesters under Section 5 of the Public Order Act on the day.

This isn’t exactly unusual; after all, the police always have the law at their disposal.

But it’s worth noting how problematic Section 5 of the Public Order Act can be, particularly in situations like tomorrow’s.

The section makes it an offence to engage in language (including writing on a placard) or behaviour “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”.

This has led to problems for free speech and free protest in the past, from the arrest of Christian preachers to the conviction of Al Muhajiroun poppy-burner Emdadur Choudhury.

Considering the mix of Thatcher fans, tourists and events junkies who will line the route of the funeral cortege tomorrow along with the expected protesters, it is conceivable that any protest could be construed as likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” to someone. The issue is whether that likelihood alone enough to cause the police to intervene? Or should the deployment of the Public Order Act be limited to times when there are genuine threats to public order?

Tomorrow’s funeral, while not a “state funeral” as such, is most certainly a public event.

And being a public event, it will be open to protest: the police officers on duty tomorrow will need to bear in mind that they have a duty not just to safeguard the funeral proceedings, but to safeguard free expression too.

Padraig Reidy is senior writer at Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy

The post Protesting Margaret Thatcher’s funeral appeared first on Index on Censorship.

A London court today refused to grant bail to Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange. Assange is facing extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges including one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape.

In spite of pledges of financial surety from high-profile figures including socialite Jemima Khan, journalist John Pilger and film-maker Ken Loach, District Judge Howard Riddle said he felt there was a substantial risk that Assange would flee the country. Assange will be remanded in custody until 14 December when extradition proceedings continue.

The judge stressed that the case should be judged on its merits and not conflated with Assange’s work for Wikileaks. He also noted that while there had not been a large amount of evidence presented to the court concerning the allegations, this was not unusual at this stage in extradition proceedings.

Speaking on the steps of the court, Assange’s legal representative Mark Stephens said that a renewed plea for bail would be made. He stressed he believed that Assange could safely have been released into custody, and that he was certain that many more people would offer sureties for Assange.

Earlier, Gemma Lindfield, representing the Swedish Judicial Authority, had said that while Assange had presented himself to police for arrest, the circumstances surrounding Wikileaks “Cablegate” scandal outweighed this fact. She also claimed that if Assange were released on bail, he could be subject to attack by “unstable persons”. John Jones, representing Assange, said it was equally likely that Assange would be assaulted while on remand.

The post Wikileaks’ Julian Assange refused bail appeared first on Index on Censorship.

For more details about the event and to book your ticket click here

The post PAST EVENT: Queer Up North Festival with Kenan Malik appeared first on Index on Censorship.