16 Jul 2010 | Uncategorized
The residents of “Democracy Village” have lost their appeal against eviction from London’s Parliament Square. David Paton witnessed their hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Suits were certainly not the order of the day in court last Friday as the residents of “Democracy Village” left their adopted home in Parliament Square and took their cause to the judiciary. When one appellant, known only as “friend” took his seat at 10 o’clock dressed in a dishevelled, rotting blue and green jersey with an overgrown bushy beard, it was clear that The Mayor of London v Hall and Others, was not quite business as usual.
The presiding judges allowed all those affected by the appeal to have their say in what turned out to be something resembling a question and answer session. This resulted in some interesting submissions, including opaque appeals to God, rants about electoral fraud, accusations that the judges had committed genocide and an invitation for the Law Lords to type “babies depleted Uranium” into Google.
Amongst all the entertainment there was, in the words of Justice Neuberger the “boring” matters to resolve by the more qualified legal eagles. On 2 July, the protesters were given a last minute stay of execution, until today’s appeal against the decision to evict them was heard. The issues at stake were twofold. First, was the mayor entitled to take possession of Parliament Square and second, would doing so constitute a violation of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association. A further caveat was the question of whether Haw should be treated as a special case because he constitutes a different kind of protester than those in democracy village. As today’s judgement confirms both questions went against against the demonstrators, although Brian Haw will be allowed to stay.
Some have criticised those who defended Democracy Village, emphasising the dubious character of some of its occupants and the poor sanitation at the site. But sceptics should bear in mind the fact that some of the most lucid comments in court came from someone draped in something resembling a rainbow tapestry, wearing a polka dot facemask and a tea cosy for a hat. The man, identifying himself only as “Dot” legitimately pointed out the problems that an injunction against “Person’s Unknown” could have in distinguishing between protesters, tourists and members of the public.
Aside from the obvious judging a book by its cover argument or in this case, judging a person by their odour, there is another obvious point, one worth making: when people stand up for free speech it is the principle, not the individual that is being defended.
Read more on the Parliament Square protests
15 Jul 2010 | Index Index, minipost
Facebook has refused to remove a page dedicated to gunman Raoul Moat following criticism from the Prime Minster. During yesterday’s (July 14) Prime Minister’s Questions Conservative MP Chris Heaton-Harris called on David Cameron to contact the social networking site and request that the page, which contains a “whole host of anti-police statements” be withdrawn. Cameron, indicated that he would apply pressure for a ban, emphasising that Moat was a “callous murderer” who did not deserve support. However Facebook indicated that they would resist any approach, highlighting that “Facebook is a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way as they can and do in many other places. We believe that enabling people to have these different opinions and debate about a topic can help bring together lots of different views for a healthy discussion.” The “RIP Raoul Moat You Legend!” group has attracted over 36,000 members so far although not all posts express support for the killer.
14 Jul 2010 | Index Index, minipost
Yesterday (13 July), the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation to protect US journalists and publishers from “libel tourism”. The SPEECH (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) Act will now go before the full senate. The impetus for the bill follows a number of law suits instigated against American writers in foreign courts in order to exploit their weak libel laws. For example, New York based academic Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued in London despite only 23 copies of her book, on the financing of terrorism, being sold in the UK. If passed, the proposal will prevent federal courts from recognising foreign libel ruling that are inconsistent with the First Amendment and will allow affected persons to apply for a declaratory judgement confirming that verdicts against them are non-enforceable. The bill, co-sponsored by Democrat Patrick Leahy and Republican Jeff Sessions, is believed to have a high prospect of being enacted because of its broad cross-party support.
13 Jul 2010 | Index Index, minipost
On 13 July, radio presenter Jon Gaunt, lost his judicial review against Ofcom’s decision to censure him for describing a councillor as a Nazi. Ofcom had found a breach of the broadcasting code after Gaunt accused Redbridge Councillor Michael Stark of being a “Nazi”, “health Nazi” and an “ignorant pig” during a live debate on talkSPORT about a policy banning smokers from becoming foster parents. However, despite the ruling the High Court established significant free speech rights for broadcasters. It recognised that “shock jock” style presenting constitutes political speech and thus must be afforded a great deal of protection. Furthermore, the term “Nazi” could and was used as political slang without denoting a political or ideological position. However, OFCOM’s initial verdict was upheld because Gaunt “lost his rag” and gratuitously offended the councillor by describing him as a an “ignorant pig”. Gaunt intends to appeal the decision.
