26 Jul 2021 | News and features, United Kingdom, Volume 50.02 Summer 2021, Volume 50.02 Summer 2021 Extras
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”117131″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
Picture the scene.
I’m driving a pick-up truck. I’m dressed in a high-vis jacket and white overalls and in the back is a tonne of manure. On the side of the pick-up is the logo “BS Industries UK”. We drive up to and block the front entrance to the Houses of Parliament, immediately drawing a bevy of armed police officers (or, as I like to call them, “supporting artists”) towards us.
“You can’t park here!”
I explain that this is “Grade A bullshit” and that “the MPs ran out of bullshit so they need a fresh batch to feed to the public”.
The prank, filmed in 2013 as part of the promotional campaign for the second series of our Bafta-winning BBC show The Revolution Will Be Televised, was an expression of that quintessentially British tradition of using satire as a tool of protest. Creative direct action dressed up as a comedy sketch, if you will.
For me there is nothing more British than using satire that laughs at the powerful, and that in a very minor way holds the powerful to account. But under clause 59 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which is going through the UK parliament now public nuisance is being criminalised and I could get 10 years in jail for such a prank! Ten. Years. In. Jail. I know that’s not the funniest joke but come on…!
History teaches us that things don’t change if the status quo is not disrupted and the intention appears to be to create an environment where you can make a lot of noise, as long as you stay in your lane, but where any movement deemed effective at changing hearts and minds and making a real difference is criminalised.
The passing of the PCSB in Parliament signals an active attack on this cornerstone of British democracy. Perhaps the significance of it is that freedom to speak truth to power without the fear of recrimination or criminal sanction is a British value as well as being a fundamental tenet of freedom of speech!
What does it feel like when the democracy you grew up in starts a gradual slide towards authoritarianism? Perhaps patriotism and flag-waving replace public debate. Perhaps the very fabric of public life starts to warp and change so that rational argument about policy is replaced by questions about how many national flags were printed on said policy paper. Perhaps the worse the state of the nation becomes, the more national greatness is invoked.
But what of those who question this new status quo? In societies where the ruling class wallows in corruption and enjoys total impunity, its enemies are a free press, and those who protest are criminalised. I’m not saying we are suddenly Myanmar. I’m not saying we are even Hungary. But maybe we are becoming Hungary-lite.
In a letter to the government in March co-ordinated by Liberty and Friends of the Earth, 245 organisations said the government’s proposals were cause for “profound concern”. The organisations highlighted numerous threats to our rights, including “draconian” police powers to restrict protests. The signatories represented a wide range of interests from Amnesty International to the Ramblers.
Hundreds of mainstream charities as well as groups such as Sisters Uncut, All Black Lives UK and Reclaim the Streets have committed to building a mass movement to resist the bill. But its protest and public order provisions could result in this very movement having its actions disproportionately criminalised for participating in peaceful activity. Even former prime minister Theresa May has voiced concerns over the proposed bill, insisting that the government has to walk a fine line between being “popular and populist”, and telling lawmakers that “our freedoms depend on it”.
It seems pertinent to ask if any amount of protest will be enough to stop the bill passing into law? The proposed law is indicative of a slide towards authoritarianism deeply at odds with the founding principles and traditions of the ruling Conservative party in the UK, and the democratic principles that many of us in the oldest democracy in the world hold so dear.
[/vc_column_text][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”8890″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Jun 2021 | Opinion, Ruth's blog, Syria, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116906″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]There is a phrase which for the rest of my life will be synonymous with one person, their life and legacy. More in common.
Five years ago this week, my friend and former colleague Jo Cox was assassinated on the streets of the UK. She was a British Member of Parliament, a mum of two, a daughter, a sister and a friend. She was also brave, dedicated and determined, campaigning for better outcomes not just for the communities she represented in Batley and Spen but also for better British foreign policy, a people led foreign policy that sought to support people on the ground. In her short period in Parliament, Jo became one of the leading voices on the plight of the Syrian people and the need for aid.
On Friday 16 June 2016, I was in a meeting in my office when one of my team interrupted to tell me that Jo had been attacked as she was doing her job in the community she represented. A few hours later, we received the horrendous confirmation that she had died. That evening I sat with my family and sobbed, remembering Jo, thinking of her husband Brendan, their children and her family.
I also reflected on what this meant for British democracy.
This was the murder of an elected politician on the streets of the UK. Jo was targeted by a right-wing political extremist because of her work seeking to represent all communities. Her voice, a voice for the unempowered, for the silenced, for the persecuted, had been ended.
Life is fragile, democracy even more so, it requires all of us to recognise not only its value but also its relevance and the need for all of us, every day, to make the case for democratic values. Jo’s assassination was a vicious assault on our democratic values, which required a global response – that duly followed in the days after her death.
You could ask why Jo’s murder is relevant for Index? Her actions as an MP and her legacy are at the core of who we are and why we were established. In her maiden speech in the House of Commons she addressed the issue of division in the UK and throughout the world, arguing that: “We are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”
It’s this shared belief in humanity that drives the work of Index – that we will be a voice for the persecuted wherever they live, so that those in repressive regimes can be heard.
Today I’ll be thinking of Jo’s family and friends and remembering her laugh and tenacity. But today is also an opportunity for us to reflect on Jo’s legacy and the words of her maiden speech – “more in common”. As the debates on cancel culture and woke behaviour continue and people become increasingly toxic online – these are the words we need to hold onto and seek to make a reality wherever we live.
Rest In Peace Jo, your memory really is a blessing and we miss you.
Jo Cox, 22 June 1974 – 16 June 2016[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
27 Apr 2021 | News and features, Northern Ireland, Slapps, Statements, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116630″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]“We call on governments to translate their public commitments on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists into working realities backed up by effective safeguards,” Index on Censorship and thirteen other organisations say in the newly launched Annual Report of the Council of Europe Platform.
According to the report, a total of 201 media freedom alerts were published on the Platform in 2020, the highest annual total recorded in any year since the platform was launched in 2015. Online harassment, physical attacks, surveillance, and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are among the themes covered in the report, which draws on the media freedom alerts that were submitted to the platform over the course of 2020.
Although the United Kingdom’s National Action Plan is cited as an example of good practice, the UK is primarily mentioned in less favourable contexts in the report. The UK is mentioned, alongside Russia and Italy, as having one of the highest numbers of reported attacks on the physical integrity of journalists. Northern Ireland is mentioned as a particular area of concern, as journalists continue to face violent threats there on a recurring basis.
The UK was also mentioned in the context of SLAPPs. In May and June 2020, five Maltese media outlets received letters from a UK-based law firm demanding the removal of articles under threat of legal action, and in November 2020 legal action was filed in London against Swedish outlet Realtid as a result of their investigative work. “The UK has been identified as the foremost country of origin of such vexatious actions, and this practice threatens to bring the UK and its legal profession into disrepute in the eyes of the world,” the report says.
“SLAPPs are just one of the issues that demand immediate attention from the UK and other Council of Europe member states, from the Council of Europe itself, and from the European Union,” said Jessica Ní Mhainín, Index’s Policy and Campaigns Manager, who was involved in the creation of the report. “We need to stand behind our independent journalists and to ensure that they can carry out their work without interference. We will not be able to protect our democracies, our rule of law, and our human rights if we cannot protect our free press.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
31 Mar 2021 | News and features, United Kingdom
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”116514″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]An author of a government report into the handling of public protests has expressed her serious concerns about the independence and impartiality of the police watchdog. The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary looked at policing in the wake of the Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion protests, was published on 11 March 2021 and backed Home Office proposals for tightening up the law. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which followed sparked protests across the country.
Alice O’Keeffe, who worked as an associate editor at the HMIC, feared the conclusions may have contributed to the crackdown on the vigil for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common in south London. The 33-year-old’s killing provoked a national outcry in the UK about violence against women. Ms O’Keeffe was removed from the team tasked by Home Secretary Priti Patel to report on the policing of the vigil itself after she expressed her view that the “handling of the vigil was completely unacceptable and disproportionate.”
In its report, the HMIC concluded the police acted appropriately in handcuffing and arresting women protestors at the vigil, although it recognised coverage in the media had been a public relations disaster.
In a letter to HMIC head Sir Tom Winsor, seen by Index on Censorship, the civil servant raised her “serious and urgent concerns about breaches of the civil service code” during the earlier inspection into public protests. She raised questions about how the inspection team could be impartial when she was the only member who was not from a policing background. The letter makes a number of serious claims about the impartiality of the inspectorate:
- The civil servant was the only person on the team from a non-policing background, apart from two human rights lawyers who sat in on some discussions.
- A serving Chief Inspector from the Metropolitan Police sat on the team during the fieldwork evaluation even though this was the force originally responsible for demanding the new powers.
- There were only two women on the team of 12 (although a further woman joined later to work on case studies).
- Although a significant part of the inspection concerned the policing of Black Lives Matter protests, only one member of the team of 12 was from an ethnic minority background.
- There was no one with a specialism in equality and race on the team.
- The threat from extreme-right wing groups was not considered.
- The team demonstrated consistent bias against peaceful protest groups, drawing comparisons between them and the IRA.
- The report misrepresented public opinion on the policing of protest.
The civil servant claimed the inspectorate decided to back the government’s proposals before fieldwork has been completed. She quoted correspondence between the inspectorate and the Home Secretary from late 2020 which said the government’s proposals “would improve police effectiveness (without eroding the right to protest) and would be compatible with human rights laws. Moreover, measured legislative reform in these respects would send a clear message to protestors and police forces alike about the limits of the right to protest”.
In her letter to Sir Tom Winsor, the civil servant claimed: “The purpose of the report was not to collect evidence and then make a decision, but rather to collect evidence to support the decision that has already been made.”
Ms O’Keeffe has worked as journalist at the Guardian, the Observer and the New Statesman. She previously worked at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
In a statement the inspectorate confirmed it was evaluating Ms O’Keeffe’s observations. However, it said that as an editor “she was not privy to all the work which assessed and weighed the evidence in the inspection”. The final judgment was made by one of the inspectors of constabulary, it said, and approved by the board of the inspectorate.
The statement went on to explain that a thorough legal analysis carried out by external counsel had been completed by the time the letter referred to by Ms O’Keeffe was sent to the Home Secretary. No final judgement was made until fieldwork into the policing of protests had been concluded and the Home Secretary was informed the initial judgement was provisional.
HMIC said its inspection teams always include seconded police officers and that officers from the Metropolitan Police were often used. It denied peaceful protestors were equated to the IRA.
The statement concluded: “The Clapham inspection was entirely objective as is apparent from the report just published. Ms O’Keeffe was not put on the Clapham report because, by her own acknowledgement, she had already made up her mind what the conclusions should be before any evidence had been obtained.
“The independence of the inspectorate has always been conspicuous. It is led by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary whose reputation for independence goes back many years.”
Read extracts from the letter and why Index defends the right to protest even during a pandemic.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
