The new policing bill: A new legal order or simply a violation of our rights?

Posted on 09 Dec 2021 by Ella Newman

Disclaimer: The views expressed below are that of the individual author.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 is currently in the process of making its way through the House of Lords. This new legislation, as proposed by Home Secretary Priti Patel, comes as a legislative response to the disruption caused by climate activists in an attempt to stop these minorities of people “causing disruption”. However, the Bill has been heavily criticised due to the impact on the fairness in the UK legal system.

The Conservative Parliament, who are at the forefront of this legislation, propose that “serious annoyance” is no longer caused. Contrary to this, organisations such as Greenpeace state that the purpose of a peaceful protest is to create non-violent direct action, which highlights the necessary ‘disruption’ of an impactful movement. Friends of the Earth have also highlighted that the right to protest is fundamental within a democratic society, as it promotes freedom of speech and empowers people to influence decisions that directly affect them. The controversy surrounding the implementation of this bill has emphasized the impact that these restrictive additional powers will have on public protest. Hence, does this Bill represent a blatant violation of democracy?

‘An assault on our freedom’

This Bill has been described by Amnesty, the International Organisation on Human Rights, as an ‘assault on our freedom’. The organisation has highlighted events in which the armed forces have already used considerable force to protect themselves from ‘harm’, such as at the Sarah Everard vigil in Clapham Common in March 2021. This assaults our freedom, because these additional powers do not further protect armed forces but instead enable them to interfere with non-violent and peaceful activity. This undermines the whole concept of a protest by suppressing the ambitions of a free and liberal society.

Racism and discrimination

The concern of racism and discrimination is another issue at the forefront of the opposition to this new legislation. Among the exhaustive list of powers awarded to the police in this new proposal are those which widen their right to carry out stop and searches. The Guardian have highlighted the severity of the situation in regard to the disproportionate targeting of people racialised as black. In fact, stop-and-search data has not been released by the government for the previous year. This has been described as an attempt to hide figures to disguise the pre-existing impact that this protocol already has on black communities. In granting police further powers to carry out searches, there are worries this will only enhance the current disproportionate searches. In a country where ethnic minorities already feel marginalised, this legislation will exacerbate these pre-existing social problems. Instead, the focus should be given to address the structural inequality already present in our legal system.

If this legislation continues to disproportionately affect black people, there will be an increase in distrust of law enforcement. In a recent report sent to the health secretary, over 600 health professionals have commented on the “oppressive” nature of this reform and the destructive impact that it will have on the relationship of confidentiality and trust between law enforcement and society. Creating this relationship of distrust would fracture society and generate further conflict, which supports the reason to reform this by focusing on the fundamental cause of the issue rather than worsening the already present issue.

State control

Although reforms to legislation may appear as a more effective means of improving law and order in the UK, it seems as though it is merely an attempt for the state to gain some control. The inessentiality of this Bill instead appears as an opportunity for the government to regain control through a ‘justified’ and legal means. Joshua Clements, a writer for the Guardian, has highlighted that in the interest of freedom of expression, ministers should not have the power to subjectively shut down protests that they do not agree with. He reiterates a speech given by Theresa May in that lack of government intervention in the scenes of a protest is explained by the fact that “we live in a democratic, free society”. Thus, with the proposed increase in powers and subjectivity of this Bill, our right to protest and participation in a democratic society is under threat.

Conclusion

This Bill will be detrimental to the fundamental values that the UK legal system is founded upon: democracy and freedom. The impact that it will have on its supposed objective is not sufficient to outweigh the effect it will have on other fundamental issues and rights. It would not only violate our rights; it would also worsen pre-existing discriminatory issues. The government has emphasised that the right to protest does not constitute an absolute right, but does this give them the power to wholly deprive a population of their right to freedom of expression?

Heading picture source: Tolga Akmen / AFP) (Photo by TOLGA AKMEN/AFP via Getty Images)

Share on: