14 Aug 09 | Index Index, Middle East and North Africa, minipost
Journalists, writers and booksellers united in Baghdad today to stage a protest against censorship. The protesters are concerned about encroachments by the government on the freedom of writers, both in print and online. The demonstration took place in front of Baghdad’s Mutanabi Street book market, with the crowd chanting: “Yes, yes for freedom. No, no to silencing journalists.” Read more here
29 Jul 09 | Uncategorized
So who exactly is in charge here? Reading the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) into the policing of protest (a follow up to an earlier report), you sometimes wonder.
Recently the police have not exactly covered themselves with glory. The policing of the G20 protests — which involved “kettling” protesters and then keeping them contained in tight areas for hours and hours — was a mess, as anyone who was there can report, a provocative, incendiary mess. If you wanted to come up with a way to convince peaceful protesters that the police are heavy-handed brutes who have no respect for anyone’s rights but their own, and who are really all out for a good ruck, it would be pretty hard to top this.
The JCHR is clearly not happy. Its earlier report clearly called for police to pay more attention to human rights issues, and suggested that the Northern Ireland model, where “policing means protecting human rights” is the one we should be looking to. And this report says it all over again, but slightly more plaintively. The committee doesn’t want a wholesale rewrite of the law, but it does think some small changes could preserve the sacred right to peaceful protest.
But what powers does the committee have to enforce this? The government and the minister of policing seem disinclined to leap off their bums and follow up. At one point during the inquiry which preceded this report, the minister even said, bemusingly, that he is not sure that police should be legally required to show their badge numbers because “you have to ask yourself, if you have got a very, very small number of officers who are determined to obscure their number, even if it is a legislative framework, whether it would make much difference to them”. It’s worrying that someone working in the Home Office should not understand the basic point of a legal requirement, which would mean that officers not displaying it could be made to. Surely this is ABC level?
The government also, it emerges, cannot force the police to undergo human rights training. In fact it does not appear that the government can do very much at all.
Now much as one applauds the good and balanced work of the JCHR, one cannot help but wonder where it is going to get us. Anyone observing the actions of the police this year can easily infer that they are working with the aim of scaring off as many protesters as possible — the recent closing down of the Big Green Gathering certainly enforces this hypothesis.
The government may murmur politely to the JCHR that it absolutely support its work, that it’s marvellous dear, marvellous; couldn’t agree more. But unless they actually come out and say very, very loudly that peaceful protest is a human right, that the police must calm down immediately and that there are going to be smacked wrists all round if this heavy-handedness carries on, I’m afraid that the police will continue to feel that they have a mandate. They may well feel that actually this government is happy for them to keep on quashing these pesky protesters and keeping them as quiet as possible. And all the good intentions of the JCHR will count for very little.
Bibi van der Zee is the author of Rebel Rebel – The Protester’s Handbook
22 Jul 09 | Uncategorized
Kent Police are to publish a report on the controversial police tactics at last summer’s climate camp at Kingsnorth power station, following pressure from the Home Office. But an earlier, buried report, which I wrote about here, will still not be published, in spite of an apparent pledge by policing minister David Hanson to publish both reports.
Liberal Democrat shadow justice secretary David Howarth has criticised Hanson for making an announcement as Parliament went into recess and for failing to honour a promise by his predecessor, Vernon Coaker, to share the findings of the first report, which was undertaken by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA).
In a written parliamentary statement released on Tuesday 21 July, Hanson announced that Kent Police would publish the second report, which he said was “overseen” by the NPIA and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), (on Wednesday). As Index revealed in May, the force commissioned this report from South Yorkshire police in March, because it did not like the findings of the original report.
I understand that both reports are likely to be critical of Kent Police. But if the report published on Wednesday is seen to pull its punches, it will provoke suspicions that the earlier report was buried because it did not.
Two weeks ago, Hanson, who replaced Coaker in the recent reshuffle, told MPs that the NPIA, Kent Police and the Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) had looked at police tactics at Kingsnorth. Hanson said: “I will receive shortly, and will publish for the House, reports on those issues, and I will look at what lessons can be learned.”
It is clear that the reference to Kent Police related to the South Yorkshire police report. HMIC is conducting a major review of the policing of protest, which will look at Kingsnorth but will be published towards the end of the year. This suggests that Hanson promised, perhaps inadvertently, to publish the NPIA original report.
But the Home Office will still not say whether it has obtained a copy of the NPIA report or plans to get hold of it. Hanson has ignored two requests from Howarth to discuss the issue. Last month he replied to a written parliamentary question from Howarth by reference to the second report, which he said was “due to report in June”.
Howarth told Index: “It is highly suspicious that the second report is coming out during the parliamentary recess, when it cannot be properly scrutinised.
“It is also deeply puzzling that the Minister made no reference to the original report, and disappointing that he has not agreed to a meeting to discuss these unresolved issues.”
Hanson also told MPs two weeks ago that he had “raised in a letter to Kent police of 24 June the need for me to see their report of the incidents at Kingsnorth”. He added that Kent’s chief constable, Michael Fuller, had assured him that he intended to publish the report.
As I write this, I am waiting for the NPIA to decide whether to release its original report under the freedom of information act. The NPIA has made clear that it will take close account of the views of Kent Police. The idea that it is a matter for Kent police if they want to bury the original report on Kingsnorth seems to echo the Home Office position, which clearly does not apply to the second report. We may find out soon why that is.
Update: Kent police actually published both the South Yorkshire Police report and the original NPIA report last week. Both are critical of the policing operation and in particular the blanket use of stop and search tactics. In spite of claims that it was being amended, the NPIA report was last updated on 5 March. Although the final version has now been published, my freedom of information request covers all drafts of the NPIA report.
