Skip to main content
Marcin Morawski

The UK is making protest illegal

Intro #

This is an excerpt from a tiny newsletter that I used to send to friends when I was intensely learning about climate change. In this issue, I looked at climate activism, and how states react to it. I wrote an in-depth analysis of the UK Public Order Bill, which included authoritarian measures for arresting people who may engage in protest before it even happened. A slightly milder version of the law was passed in the UK Parliament, which had a chilling effect on the culture of activism in England. Even if it hadn't been passed, the fact that the ruling party was willing to propose such sanctions shows how badly civil liberties have been eroded in that country.

References #

"Public order bill" by Priti Patel and Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Rishi Sunak is UK's third prime minister in 45 days. His most controversial act to date was the reappointment of Suella Braverman as home secretary. Braverman got fired by Sunak's predecessor for leaking policy documents. She has publicly said that she was proud of the British Empire, and that she couldn't wait until they're able to ship British asylum seekers to to Rwanda. During the chaos created by Truss, Braverman, unnoticed, managed to pass through the House of Commons a scary piece of legislation.

Penalties #

Until recently, protesters in the UK were usually charged with 'Breach of the Peace', or 'Obstruction of the Highway'. They're both vague offences, which gives the courts a fair amount of leeway to interpret the protester's actions in the right context. Most people get off scot-free, or with very light sentences. The new bill removes this vagueness by listing most of the civil disobedience tactics used by the climate movement and penalises them with fines and prison sentences. It mentions: locking oneself to objects, carrying a lock-on device (e.g. a bicycle U-lock), tunneling, carrying tunneling equipment, obstruction of road/rail construction, and 'interference with key national infrastructure' (meaning gas/oil, transport, and newspapers).

Activism was always a risky activity with the possibility of ending up in jail. Now, with less room for interpretation, it'll be easier to prosecute people, and penalties may get more severe. However, they will still be mediated by courts, in the open. Activists in the Global North have some faith in the legal process, and care more about getting caught than about the consequences. The scarier bit of the bill are the provisions it has for stopping protest before it happens.

Preventive measures #

Under the Public Order Bill, you can get stopped and searched without suspicion if the local police reasonably suspect that there's a chance of protest occurring in their area. Some places, such as defense facilities, are declared explicitly off-limits. If the police expect that you may protest at a place, and you have provably protested in the 5 years prior (or merely caused or contributed to the carrying out by any other person of activities related to a protest), you can be placed in house arrest, and fitted with an electronic tracker. For up to 2 years (1 year with the tracker). This is meant to stop you from doing things like using the internet to facilitate or encourage persons to (...) carry out activities related to a protest. It is not just your freedom of movement that can be restricted, but also your freedom of speech.

Conclusion #

The potential for this legislation being abused by the police is enormous, and the Internet is full of human rights advocates asking for it to be scrapped. Whatever you think about climate protesters, the idea of being placed in house arrest for merely encouraging protest is scary.

Not many people mention that, in banning specific acts, the UK government is fighting a losing battle. Protest tactics constantly evolve, so naming them all is pointless. In fact, they're already behind - I see no mentions of tripods, or tensegrity structures, which have been around for years. The recent uproar caused by two 20-year-olds covering a Van Gogh in soup makes it obvious that people will find creative ways to demonstrate regardless of the law. By passing draconian legislation, the UK government is losing any remnants of moral superiority it still has over autocratic governments.