Protesters at London’s Democracy Village have lost their appeal against eviction from Parliament Square. Read Index’s report from the appeal hearing here
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.
Home Secretary Theresa May is to halt searches of individuals without reasonable suspicion after the European Court of Human Rights rules the power unlawful. Leah Borromeo reports
(more…)
Narrow definitions of a bona fide protester smack of Victorian ideals of the deserving poor — Index defends everyone’s right to protest, writes Jo Glanville
Brett Lock’s despair at Index’s lack of sophistication raises of one of the great ironies for free speech activists. Many of the landmark free speech cases have been fought in defence of individuals whose ideas, beliefs and attitudes are singularly unattractive. Take the famous Skokie case of the 1970s, when the American Civil Liberties Union fought for the right of neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish neighbourhood. Or the celebrated Oz trial of the same decade. The Oz Schoolkids issue which was prosecuted for obscenity could never be called great literature, but the ultimate success of the case was an important milestone in protecting the freedom of expression of all writers. It is the principle in these cases that matters and that needs defending.
Brian Haw may have some questionable beliefs, but his longstanding presence in Parliament Square became a symbol of protest and of the defence to the right to protest under the last government. Would our critics prefer that Index choose only the most deserving cases? How does one decide who is or isn’t a bona fide protester, worthy of the support of a free speech organisation? Rather than pick and choose the apparently desirable causes and victims, it’s important for Index to be consistent and defend Haw and the Democracy Village. New Labour brought in a chilling number of laws that infringed the right to protest — including the freedom to demonstrate around parliament, and the use of stop and search counter-terrorism legislation — and the coalition government’s commitment to repeal the restrictions around Westminster is to be applauded. The removal of Brian Haw at the state opening of parliament was therefore a worrying moment so early in the life of the new government.
As Bibi van der Zee pointed out in her piece for Index last week, the British have a long tradition of pitching their tents in protest — from Heathrow to road bypasses — on public and private land. And what could be a better spot for making your voice heard than opposite parliament? The legal argument around this case pitches the protesters’ right to free expression against the public’s rights and freedoms to access Parliament Square. But it is surely not the worthiness of the protesters’ cause that should be the central issue here.
Jo Glanville is editor of Index on Censorship and a member of the Ministry of Justice working party on libel reform