Morning Star: Defending democracy – how can we beat back Gove’s dangerous authoritarianism?

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/defending-democracy-how-can-we-beat-back-goves-dangerous-authoritarianism

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove speaking during the Scottish Conservative party conference at the Event Complex Aberdeen, March 2, 2024

The left cannot confine ourselves to condemning what the government does. We need strategies to undo it. This applies to the toxic new definition of extremism announced by Michael Gove last week, which could have catastrophic long-term consequences.

The new definition — and its associated practice, the labelling of certain organisations as extremist by ministerial decree — must not be allowed to bed in. We need mass refusal to accept it, declarations by devolved and local government, trade unions, charities and campaigns that we wholly reject it.

The joint statement by key organisers of the mass street movement for Gaza that Gove’s “redefinition of extremism … is in reality an assault on core democratic freedoms” is the right approach.

Our defence must be to go on the attack against the extremism definition, to campaign publicly for its reversal and to sign up every organisation that cares for its democratic image to officially oppose it.

The next government should inherit a policy that is already utterly discredited and unworkable because its right to define extremists is universally rejected.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/defending-democracy-how-can-we-beat-back-goves-dangerous-authoritarianism

Continue ReadingMorning Star: Defending democracy – how can we beat back Gove’s dangerous authoritarianism?

Gove’s ‘anti-extremism’ drive puts democracy at risk, campaigners warn

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/splash-democracy-risk-warns-left-after-gove-plan

Communities secretary, Michael Gove, February 11, 2024

DEMOCRACY is under threat, campaigners warned today as the Tories launched a new “anti-extremism” drive aimed mainly against Muslims.

Communities Secretary Michael Gove named three Muslim organisations in the Commons as he unveiled the government’s new definition of extremism, apparently responding to the mass movement of solidarity with the Palestinian people that has mushroomed over the last five months.

One of the organisations named by Mr Gove, the Muslim Association of Britain, has been part of the coalition of five groups organising the national demonstrations.

The others singled out by the Tories are Mend and Cage. For show, two obscure far-right groups, British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, were also identified.

The five pro-Palestinian campaigns, which include Stop the War and Palestine Solidarity, said in a statement that the “redefinition of extremism is in reality an assault on core democratic freedoms, seeking to silence dissenting voices.”

Stressing “the fundamental right to legitimately campaign to change government policy,” the joint statement added that “the marches have been overwhelmingly peaceful and attended by a broad cross-section of British society.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/splash-democracy-risk-warns-left-after-gove-plan

Continue ReadingGove’s ‘anti-extremism’ drive puts democracy at risk, campaigners warn

Rishi Sunak’s plan to redefine extremism is disingenuous – and a threat to democracy

Spread the love
Over 400 disrupt operations at BAE Systems site and call for ceasefire ahead of national march for Palestine 10 Nov 2023
Over 400 disrupt operations at BAE Systems site and call for ceasefire ahead of national march for Palestine 10 Nov 2023

Alan Greene, University of Birmingham

Unhappy with large protests against the increasingly dire situation in Gaza, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is seeking to update the UK’s definition of extremism. This, he has argued, is needed because “our democracy itself is a target” of antisemitic and Islamophobic extremists.

However, the reality is that no measures do more damage to democracy than policy proposals like the one Sunak is promoting.

The UK already has a definition for extremism, which is used in efforts to tackle terrorism. We may think of the police as leading those efforts, but the UK’s Prevent strategy now also places a duty on certain other authorities to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.

These authorities include local government, education institutions and the NHS. In reality, the UK has placed teachers and NHS staff on the frontline in the fight against terrorism, on top of all their other duties that they were actually trained to do.

To help those with a duty under Prevent to identify people at risk of being drawn into terrorism, the government currently defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. Also included are “calls for the death of members of our armed forces”.

This definition is not contained in any law, however. Instead, it features in the government’s Prevent guidance. A key reason why this definition is not contained in legislation is because it is so vague and unclear. It would be difficult to legally oblige anyone with a duty under Prevent to apply the definition – and even more difficult for a court to determine what it means.

Even as guidance, there are still problems with the definition. It offers enormous discretion to the people deciding who is at risk of being drawn into terrorism. Discretion can lead to inconsistent application. That, in turn, can lead to discrimination.

Vague to vaguer

It has been suggested that the new definition of extremism will include the “promotion or advancement of ideology based on hatred, intolerance or violence or undermining or overturning the rights or freedoms of others, or of undermining democracy itself”.

What does it mean to undermine or overturn the rights or freedoms of others? Would arguing for the UK to leave the European convention on human rights count meet the bar?

Likewise, what does it mean to undermine democracy? Does excessive corporate lobbying do so? What about calling for restrictions on the right to free speech or the right to protest? These are fundamental rights that are absolutely necessary for a democracy to flourish. Would they be extremist?

Existing laws are enough

Sunak is presenting the new definition of extremism as a response to protests he depicts as being out of control. But the UK already has numerous laws in place to tackle what it considers to be unacceptable behaviour at protests. The Terrorism Act (which is also incredibly broad) can be used to prosecute people who damage property or create a serious risk to public safety during protests.

Counter-terrorism laws can also capture forms of expression at public demonstrations or online. It is already a crime to express support for a proscribed (unlawful) organisation, or to wear clothing, symbols or publish images in a way which can raise suspicion that you support an unlawful organisation. So, for example, if you express support for Hamas — a proscribed organisation — you are already committing a crime and can be prosecuted for it.

Meanwhile, the Public Order Act contains offences dealing with hate speech. These include using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displaying written material which is intended to or likely to stir up racial or religious hatred.

In 2022, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act expanded the criminal offence of causing a public nuisance to include “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity”. This can now be applied by he police to criminalise protests that are considered to be making too much noise.

It is hard, therefore, to see which bases are not already covered for a government looking to prosecute people for extremism. These mechanisms have already been used to clamp down on all kinds of activism. In reality, there is no gap in the law that needs fixing. Rather, this proposal looks like a classic example of a government talking tough on crime and terrorism in order to boost its poll ratings in an election year.

The right to protest

Adding new definitions for extremism only creates problems. The vaguer a definition gets, the easier it is to misuse. It can also have a pervasive chilling effect on free speech. People may self-censor out of fear of being identified as extremist, not least when their employer has a duty under Prevent.

The fact of the matter is that human rights law allows for protests to be disruptive. Otherwise, they could be simply ignored. Human rights law also allows people to “shock, offend, and disturb” through speech.

The government may not be happy with large public protests against its foreign policy but it should not be viewed as extremist to march for a ceasefire in Gaza. Likewise, it should not be viewed as extremist to vocalise opposition to the potential genocide being committed by the Israeli Defence Forces. If this were so, then the International Court of Justice is extremist.

There is a deep danger of conflating protest with extremism and terrorism, undermining the legitimacy of these protests. To stretch the concept of extremism to cover these views is what is actually undermining democracy and the rights and freedoms of others.The Conversation

Alan Greene, Reader in Constitutional Law and Human Rights, University of Birmingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

Continue ReadingRishi Sunak’s plan to redefine extremism is disingenuous – and a threat to democracy

‘Profoundly anti-democratic and repressive’

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/profoundly-anti-democratic-and-repressive

Government told to reject John Woodcock’s proposals to blacklist Palestine solidarity and climate campaign groups

UNIONS and human rights groups have called on the government to reject “profoundly anti-democratic and repressive” proposals to blacklist Palestine solidarity and climate campaign groups.

John Woodcock, Westminster’s adviser on political violence, urged the government earlier this month to ban politicians from engaging with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), as well as groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.

Mr Woodcock, who has received money from Israel lobby groups, said that the government should take a “zero-tolerance approach” to pro-Palestine protests, which he claimed were a “menace […] threatening our democracy.”

In a joint statement, civil rights orgnisations Liberty, Friends of the Earth and Amnesty International said the activities of organisations like PSC are “essential elements of our democratic system.”

“Any suggestion that the government or political parties should ban all meetings or engagement with legal civil society organisations or sections of the electorate is profoundly anti-democratic and sets a dangerous precedent,” it warned.

“Politicians should be listening to the wishes of the public and put pressure on Israel to end its murderous assault, rather than trying to shut down democratic engagement and debate.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/profoundly-anti-democratic-and-repressive

Continue Reading‘Profoundly anti-democratic and repressive’

You won’t stop us marching for peace

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/you-wont-stop-us-marching-for-peace

People take part in a pro-Palestine march in central London during a national demonstration for ceasefire in Gaza, March 9, 2024

Defiant protesters reject ‘extremism’ label by MPs to stop marches

CAMPAIGNERS have slammed the government’s “repressive” attempts to clamp down on the right to protest and redefine extremism, warning they are “poorly drafted and open to legal challenge.”

Communities Secretary Michael Gove is expected to announce a looser definition of extremism within days.

Organisations and individuals that breach the new definition will be banned from receiving public funds, engaging with government agencies and appearing at university campuses.

Several Muslim groups are reportedly set to be on the list, including the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Engagement and Development NGO.

Mr Gove claims he aims to ban groups which “undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/you-wont-stop-us-marching-for-peace

Continue ReadingYou won’t stop us marching for peace

Morning Star: The real extremists are those trying to silence solidarity with Palestine

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/editorial-real-extremists-are-those-trying-silence-solidarity-palestine

People take part in a pro-Palestine march in central London, organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, February 17, 2024

BRITAIN’S rulers are coming for our democratic rights. And their way is being prepared with a barrage of propaganda and lies.

The “counter-extremism commissioner” Robin Simcox peddles an outrageous smear against the peace movement when he claims Palestine solidarity demonstrations make London a “no-go zone for Jews.”

Tell that to the large and growing Jewish bloc that has marched for a Gaza ceasefire at every national demo.

But, as Stop the War Coalition officer John Rees warns, the ruling-class’s cynical strategy of interpreting empathy with Palestinians as hostility to Jews has sown confusion and fear.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/editorial-real-extremists-are-those-trying-silence-solidarity-palestine

Continue ReadingMorning Star: The real extremists are those trying to silence solidarity with Palestine

Braverman’s consultation on anti-protest laws was ‘only open to police’

Spread the love

Original article by Anita Mureithi republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence

Liberty’s lawyers say police feedback was ‘directly incorporated into the final text’ of Braverman’s anti-protest laws  | Richard Baker / In Pictures via Getty Images

High Court told government only sought feedback from people it knew would agree with its controversial changes

Only police were consulted on anti-protest laws before they were forced through by the UK government, according to human rights lawyers suing the home secretary.

Campaign group Liberty has been in court this week challenging James Cleverly over amendments to the Public Order Act that were pushed through by his predecessor, Suella Braverman, last year.

Liberty was given permission to take legal action against Braverman in October after she used secondary legislation – subject to less parliamentary scrutiny – to strengthen police powers to shut down protests that cause “more than minor disruption to the life of the community”.

The group says Braverman’s actions amounted to a “serious overreach” and that she acted unlawfully because the changes to the law had already been rejected in the House of Lords.

And Liberty has labelled a consultation on the proposed laws in 2022 as “one-sided” and “unfair” – because the Home Office only consulted police. The government gave the Met, Staffordshire Police, Essex Police, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and the College of Policing opportunities to give their views on the legislation, but did not seek input from anyone who might be impacted by the laws.

Liberty argued: “The [home secretary] voluntarily embarked upon a process of consultation about the contents and drafting of the regulations but then only consulted a narrow group of stakeholders in support of the amendments rather than an even-handed group representative of all those whose interests may be adversely impacted.”

Its lawyers also say police feedback was “directly incorporated into the final text” of the amendments to the Public Order Act, including on the definition of “serious disruption to the life of the community”.

The new powers have been criticised by Liberty and other human rights groups due to the vagueness of the new language, which campaigners say allows police to shut down almost any protests. The changes forced through by Braverman mean officers can interfere with and arrest anyone taking part in protests that they believe will cause “more than minor disruption to the life of the community”.

Police feedback on “cumulative disruption” was also included in the final amendments to the act. Under this law, officers must take into account all “relevant cumulative disruption”, regardless of whether or not your protest is related to any other protest or disruption in the same area. Before this amendment, there was no explicit requirement for police to consider this.

While the government held multiple meetings with police representatives in December 2022 to seek input and “refine policy”, Liberty argues that the fact that no rights groups or members of the public were consulted is rooted in “procedural unfairness” and that the changes must be reversed.

Katy Watts, Liberty’s lawyer leading the case said: “The government has shown it’s determined to put itself above the law, avoid scrutiny and become untouchable – so it’s no surprise it only consulted people it knew would agree with its new law.

“Our democracy exists to make sure a government can’t just do whatever it wants, and an important part of that is consulting a wide range of voices on new laws – especially those likely to raise reasonable concerns. This improves government decision making and helps to make our laws better. The government’s failure to do this is just one of the ways it acted unlawfully when it forced these powers though.”

The laws were initially brought in to clamp down on protests by climate activist groups like Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, and Extinction Rebellion, but other protesters are now also being targeted.

The government has accused pro-Palestine protesters of “hijacking legitimate protests”, “shouting down and coercing elected representatives”, and has also called them “un-British” and “undemocratic”.

In a new ‘defending democracy policing protocol’ released this week, the government pledged £31m of additional funding to protect MPs after safety fears were raised.

The Home Office said it wants to “protect the democratic process from intimidation” but according to its own policy paper, only met with police representatives from the National Police Chiefs Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and the College of Policing.

The Home Office did not respond to a request for comment.

The two-day hearing ended yesterday and Liberty’s lawyers expect a decision could take up to three months.

Original article by Anita Mureithi republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

licence

OpenDemocracy’s free daily email

Protest isn’t harassment, says group suing UK government over law change

Home Office ‘did not discuss’ Islamophobia risk in wake of Hamas attacks

Continue ReadingBraverman’s consultation on anti-protest laws was ‘only open to police’

Morning Star: It’s Rishi Sunak & Co not ‘the mob’ that are the real threat to our democracy

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/editorial-sunak-threat-democracy

We have been told that all marchers are Islamists or “extremists” and present Home Secretary James Cleverley has demanded that the organisers call them off since they have “made their point.”

However, the government has not yet got that point. It continues to thwart efforts to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

And the propaganda overlooks the fact that the repeated huge demonstrations have been almost entirely peaceful. Such few arrests as there have been have been mainly about the police stopping the display of what they regard as unacceptable slogans or images.

It is clear that the Establishment is rattled by the intensity of opposition to its pro-Israel policy and by the fact that the cosy Commons consensus is rejected by the country outside, which overwhelmingly wants a ceasefire.

And masses repeatedly mobilised on the streets always rattle the state, more or less regardless of the issue. These protests are still more menacing to the elite because they challenge the prerogatives of imperialism.

It is no surprise therefore that state prosecutor Starmer’s Labour has hardly raised a peep of protest.

But the solidarity protests are the voice of democracy. The bipartisan move against them is a threat to all our freedoms. The left must stand against the hysteria and assert our democratic right to hold politicians to account.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/editorial-sunak-threat-democracy

Well said Morning Star

Continue ReadingMorning Star: It’s Rishi Sunak & Co not ‘the mob’ that are the real threat to our democracy

Protest isn’t harassment, says group suing UK government over law change

Spread the love

 Original article by Anita Mureithi republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence

Protesters gather in Parliament Square, London, to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, 21 February 2024
 | Alberto Pezzali/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Human rights group Liberty says spotlight on MPs’ safety has seen Tories ‘vilify’ Palestine marchers

Ahuman rights campaign group suing the government for forcing through anti-protest laws says people who go on Palestine marches are being “vilified” to “stoke division”.

Liberty is today challenging the home secretary, James Cleverly, in the High Court over a decision by his predecessor Suella Braverman to introduce new legislation targeting protesters that had already been rejected by Parliament.

The case comes in a week where protest rights are in the spotlight. Pro-Palestine marches are being labelled a threat to MPs and the Home Affairs Select Committee has called on the government to force organisers to give more notice.

Speaking to openDemocracy ahead of the hearing, Liberty director Akiko Hart said: “We’re seeing both our fundamental rights of protest being undermined, but also specific protests like the pro-Palestinian marches being vilified.”

Hart took aim at the “incredibly irresponsible rhetoric from senior politicians where protest is equated to intimidation and harassment”.

MPs’ safety fears were raised last week following chaos in the House of Commons over a symbolic vote on a ceasefire in Gaza. Though some MPs have reported an increase in abuse and threats, campaigners warn that peaceful protests are now being associated with terrorism in order to undermine them.

“There were legitimate concerns around MPs’ safety – obviously, two MPs have been murdered in the last ten years,” she said. “We need to take that very, very seriously. I would also say that it’s MPs who are racialised who are most at risk from harassment, and that’s what the evidence shows us.

“But to conflate harassment with protest, which is what’s happening this week, is really dangerous and irresponsible. There are laws in place to deal with harassment and abuse. That isn’t the same as legitimate protest.”

In its recommendations, the Home Affairs Select Committee said more notice was needed ahead of Palestine marches because the size and frequency of the protests is a burden on police resources. But according to the coalition organising the national Palestine marches, the measures would further limit the right to peaceful protest. Hart also said the current notice period of six days is enough for police to prepare for marches.

“Extending that will just restrict people’s ability to be able to make their voices heard. With this, as with any other issue, the point about protest is that it is not about whether or not you agree – it’s about our right to protest,” she explained.

Liberty was given the green light to sue Braverman in October after she used secondary legislation – which doesn’t get the same level of parliamentary scrutiny – to allow police to restrict or shut down any protest that could cause “more than minor disruption to the life of the community”.

“It shouldn’t be the case that you would have to take the home secretary to court with all the time and effort and energy and expertise that that involves,” said Hart. “The reason we are doing so is because of the then home secretary’s egregious act of circumventing Parliament.”

The government previously tried to insert the new powers into the Public Order Act 2023 in January last year, but was blocked by the Lords.

The point about protest is that it is not about whether or not you agree – it’s about our right to protest

Liberty believes a win “would be a powerful check against any future minister or government that intends to do the same thing”.

Hart told openDemocracy that there have already been clear examples of the impact of anti-protest laws that have come through the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts (‘Policing’) Act and the Public Order Act, which both give police more powers to restrict protests.

“There were anti-monarchy protesters who were arrested on the basis that the luggage straps that they were carrying were seen to be tools for locking-on, which was a new offence created under the Public Order Act, but they were carrying them to secure their placards.

“We’re also seeing it in sentencing. Last summer, the Court of Appeal upheld the sentences of the two protesters who scaled the Dartford crossing. And those sentences were two years and seven months, and three years – the harshest sentences ever handed down in modern times around protests around civil disobedience,” she said.

The trial against the home secretary is expected to run for two days at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Hart told openDemocracy that while she and Liberty’s team of lawyers are feeling optimistic, “there’s a level of underlying exhaustion at how this government is conducting itself and responding to the protests that are happening”.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The right to peaceful protest is fundamental; the right to disrupt the hard-working public is not.

“We have taken action to give police the powers they need to tackle criminal tactics used by protesters such as locking on and slow marching, as well as interfering with key national infrastructure.

“We work closely with the police to make sure they have the tools they need to tackle disorder and minimise disruption.”

Get OpenDemocracy’s free daily email

 Original article by Anita Mureithi republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence

Continue ReadingProtest isn’t harassment, says group suing UK government over law change

Campaigners insist draconian limits on right to protest will be resisted

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/campaigners-insist-draconian-limits-right-protest-resisted

PLANS for even more draconian limits on people’s right to protest — including outside Parliament — will be resisted, campaigners insisted today.

Government “violence adviser” Baron Walney, who was Labour MP John Woodcock before his elevation, has recommended that “threatening” protests outside Parliament, MPs’ offices and council buildings be banned and dispersed by police.

The clampdown adds to existing new limits on protests including for being “too noisy” or causing inconvenience.

The Stop the War Coalition pledged to mobilise against any new laws or regulations banning protests outside Parliament, and humanitarian campaign group Liberty condemned the proposals as “knee-jerk and deeply concerning.”

Peaceful protests have been condemned by reactionary politicians and the media as “hate marches” and calls for Palestinians to have freedom “from the river to the sea” have been dubbed “anti-semitic.”

Sam Grant, advocacy director at human rights campaign group Liberty, said: “When people care deeply about an issue, it’s natural for them to make their voices heard at the place where decisions are made.

“For centuries, protesting outside Parliament has been how people have campaigned for positive change in society, from the right to vote to equal marriage.

“We’ve already seen a tightening on how people protest outside Parliament through the Policing Act 2022, and these plans could extend that much further.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/campaigners-insist-draconian-limits-right-protest-resisted

Continue ReadingCampaigners insist draconian limits on right to protest will be resisted