The right to demonstrate is fundamental in a free society. People variously demonstrate in front of Parliament. However, the continued presence of one vocal demonstrator, Brian Haw, has caused particular controversy. His essentially permanent anti-war encampment on Parliament Square has aroused considerable opposition from parliamentarians and their staff. Some have objected because of the noise from loudhailers – a particular problem for security staff protecting the precincts – and to the unsightly display.
Various attempts have been made to remove him. When attempts to get him excluded on grounds of obstructing the highway failed, provision was included in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to limit demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. In the first half of 2006, over 4000 people were spoken to about their activities in the zone covered by the Act. However, the Act proved inadequate for the purpose of removing Mr Haw, as it was held to apply to demonstrations after its passage; he was in place prior to its enactment.
Under the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, currently being considered by the Joint Committee on which Lord Tyler and I serve, Part 1 repeals the provisions of the 2005 Act covering demonstrations in the vicinty of Parliament. The Committee has been invited to consider what, if anything, should replace the provisions.
On the one hand, members of Parliament and those who work in the Palace of Westminster have a right to go about their work – difficult when people standing outside are shouting consistently through loudhailers or when mass demonstrations make passage impossible – and on the other hand people have a right to march and demonstrate. Demonstrations may be noisy and inconvenient, but what is far worse for Parliament than people demonstrating outside is people not demonstrating outside. The fact that demonstrators concentrate their activities on Parliament suggests that the institution still has relevance.
Should there be some law to regulate demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament? Should loudhailers, say, be banned, but otherwise people left to demonstrate? Should there be limitations on how long people can stay in Parliament Square demonstrating? Or should it be left to the police to utilise existing law (other than the 2005 Act) to maintain order?
The Joint Committee will shortly be taking evidence on the subject, but we have little time to reflect on it. We are required to report before the end of July.
Firstly, thank you for asking for our opinions.
I think that it is reasonable to restrict the use of equipment aimed at amplifying voices or other noise. A demonstration of sufficient size will attract the attention of parliamentarians and their staff, without interfering their work.
I think it also important that demonstrations are time-limited. The problem I have with Brian Haw is that he is acting in a rather selfish way. What about all the other people who wish to use Parliament Square to demonstrate? Why is his personal demonstration more important than any of those? I see no reason why demostrations cannot be limited to one day, perhaps from 8am until 8pm, or something along those lines.
Given those kinds of restrictions, demonstrations should be permitted, perhaps even encouraged.
Where there is genuine interference in the operation of parliament it is understandable that people look at this. But do loudhailers really cause such a nuisance?
I think people perhaps don’t want to be reminded of the fact that we have created a holocaust in Mesopotamia with our sanctions and invasion, and that is was all done to maintain our dominance in this strategically vital area of the world.
I think it is indeed very unsightly and discomforting to be reminded of such things. I suspect Lord Norton–a true parliamentarian I think–appreciates very well what a mistake it would be to clear out Brian Haw, that the real problem comes as you say when nobody is demonstrating outside parliament.
Lord Norton,
Do you know why Westminster Council or whoever owns the land in question cannot simply remove him for trespass?
I cannot imagine that the Human Rights Act/ECHR could be held to extend to interference with a landowner’s rights.
The landowner’s trespasas rights do not apply to Brian Haw as he is on public land – the courts found that he wasn’t obstructing passage and the Human Rights Act covered his rights regarding freedom of expression and freedom to peaceful assembly
The law as it stands ensures that there is a balance between the rights of citizens to protest and Parliament to work in a reasonable manner without undue interference from protests. I walk past Brian Haw’s protest almost every day, is it too loud? No! Is it an irritant for MPs? Probably yes! Does it remind everyone about the war in Iraq? I think so! So his point is made – that is the joy of democracy, we can live together whilst getting on each other’s nerves…
My initial thought on reading this post about your struggle to get into work with the demonstrations in Parliament Square was ‘Ahh..diddums..’ and words to the effect of ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen’. The right to protest is the mark of a free society which is curtailed at our peril and only with great risk to our civil liberty.
But the issue of loud-hailers brings in to the view the issue of our ‘right’ to enjoy some peace and quiet – one that is non-existent these days. As someone who was woken up this morning to a pneumatic drill in the vicinity of the house at the un-earthly hour of 8am I would quite happily see the introduction of summary execution without trial for people who disturb the peace. But I can’t see noble Lords supporting me.
Brian Haw may be a pain in the backside – but it is such pains, from the suffragettes onwards who have helped shape our modern democracy.
So if people in Parliament don’t like these protests, a good place to start would be to stop subverting democracy with facile ‘consultation’ exercises where the decisions have been made at the outset, or getting involved with illegal wars for which there is no democratic mandate or support from international institutions of global governance.
Perhaps a new noise limit in decibels for electronically amplified sound would accord with legislation that deals with domestic noisy neighbours. A council environmental official would measure the output and advise the police accordingly.
Brian Haw is a man of principle we should not punish him for this. As long as he has a permanent place of residence and the public are not placing money into a container adjacent to his squat then he should not be moved on.
Question: Haw was/is protesting about Iraq, but if the protest was to be proved to have shifted primarily to a separate issue ie the right to protest, is Ade’s comment extant?
I didn’t know too much about Haw and his supporters so checked out his site http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/about.html It appears to me that his initial demonstration in June 2001 has taken on many mantles since. Can he continue to protest about anything simply because of timing, or does he necessarily have to link it to Iraq?
To the meat of the matter, should the Palace of Westminster be treated differently from another private home or workplace? In my opinion, no.
The point of a demonstration is to draw attention to a condition or person(s). Does it necessarily follow that demonstrations must be allowed in the immediate vicinity of a business or private homes? Again, I would say no.
The case of the Huntingdon Labs and their staff should be a serving example. If there is a potential threat to the well-being of the staff, or to the operation of the business, the area should be protected.
On the issue of ‘the institution still has relevance’, so does Downing Street but that isn’t going to be opened up to demonstrators. As for loudspeakers, a bit trickier, since whistles are also de rigeur for rent-a-mob – suggest Health & Safety get stuck in, they have form for stopping most things dead in their track.
Tiz
For brainstorming: around the Bundestag im Reichstagsgebäude (the official name ;-)) there is an inviolabile precinct; so any demonstrations before the parliament aren’t possible. Further on: for any demonstration a permission for the route or the place is to be applicated at the public order office. And the noise, well there are regulations – but for a demonstration they are not of interest in general. Regarding Brian Haw he should only regard the time slot of 0700am till 0800pm (normally 1000pm but this time is regarded sleeping time and people should recover the two hours starting from 0800 pm) then it it will be fine and the rest is struggle with the law.
The only point I would make at this stage is that the main value of demonstrating outside Parliament is as a safety valve. It allows people to express themselves. Also, if the demonstrators are very lucky, it may help raise the profile of the campaign through attracting some media attention.
What it is not likely to do is change anyone’s opinion. In many cases, it is not always clear what people are demonstrating about. Take this afternoon, for example. From my office overlooking Old Palace Yard, I could see two groups of demonstrators. Unusually, I could read the banners they had, so I knew one was campaigning to keep the abortion law as it is and the other wanted change. The only problem was that both were demonstrating outside the House of Lords; the relevant votes were taking place in the House of Commons. One group was chanting, but – as is usually the case – it was impossible to make out what they were chanting. The other group was silent. Usually, groups also have placards so small one cannot read them from the distance of the Palace. The chances of either group having any affect on what went on in the Commons was essentially zero. What they did, though, was make sure they expressed themselves. I have no problem with that. That was why they were there. One group left happy and the other left disappointed.
dear lordnorton,
I know demonstrations in germany to happen outside the parliament and often far away. It depends not in the visibility to the parliament it depends on the fourth power (unregarded the medium used) transporting the demonstrators campaign.
And I know demonstrations to have to seldom effect on politics directly; the campaign’s goal is distorted by the footages / coverages often; changes in anyone’s opinion are to happen anyway.
And the campaigns are often so adversary that to prevent clashes both parties are to be separated, cocooned to keep the public order unviolated.