We have had some interesting differences of opinion expressed in evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. These have included differences between the parliamentary authorities and the Government over demonstrations in Parliament Square.
When the officials of both Houses appeared before the Committee, they expressed concern over both access to the Palace of Westminster and security when demonstrations are held in the vicinity of Parliament. They felt the 2005 Act was itself inadequate, not least in dealing with security, and that the situation would be much more problematic if the provisions of the 2005 Act were repealed.
Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty, took a very different view. He was of the opinion that once the provisions of the 2005 Act were repealed, there was no need for any significant replacement. He acknowledged there was a case for discussing with the authorities how to deal with noise and access, but otherwise felt that there was now sufficient legislation in place to deal with any problems arising from marches and demonstrations. His Department provided a memorandum detailing the (fairly extensive) provisions of other measures that could be utilised, including the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Terrorism Act. He placed emphasis on the right to demonstrate and felt that if people wished to march or to demonstrate in front on Parliament, they were entitled to do so.
This constitutes but one of the several differeces expressed by witnesses on different provisions of the draft Bill. I have previously posted an item on the evidence given by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. On the position of the Attorney General, he believed the post should be independent of Government. When we took evidence from three former Attorneys General, they – to no one’s great surprise – took a different view.
It will be interesting to see what the Committee decides to recommend on the different provisions once the evidence-taking is complete. We may have some long sessions ahead of us.
I don’t understand the logic of any multicultural society that has military campaigns overseas whilst at the same time having large numbers of related ethnic populations or others at home who are bound to become very concerned about such conflicts. So in theory it should not happen because it does not make sense.
Militarily and preferably one does not fight a war on two fronts.
It can be done if the rights of some are done away with as was the case for Japanese Americans during WWII. Nevertheless, we are not prepared to do this so civil liberties must suffer because of the threat that such arrangements pose.
For me governments that engage is such military adventures with this arrangement are also waging war on the indigenous population too because by necessity civil liberties must be suspended to deal with this illogical situation.
Under these terms no demonstrations should be allowed whatsoever.
Black Rod in giving evidence has suggested a small exclusion zone to allow Parliamentarians to come and go without having to use rear entrances. Also, the German 1999 Act on Exclusion Zones around Federal Constitutional Bodies may be a way forward for the committee.
See Germany:
http://www.ipu.org/news-e/12-9.htm
It seems prior to the move to Berlin the Bundestag and the Bundersrat had exactly the same problems as we have now. They amended the act in 2003 to allow constant monitoring of the situation hopefully with a view to reducing or removing the exclusion zone at some time in the future.
May I respectfully suggest you contact the Bundersrat; perhaps a trip to Berlin by yourselves might prove useful.
Ref: http://www.ipu.org/english/whatipu.htm