Yvette Cooper Poised to Revive Controversial Anti-Protest Laws Amid Legal Battles

[Social Media]

 

Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, is set to revive anti-protest laws originally introduced by Suella Braverman. These laws, which were designed to crack down on protest groups like Just Stop Oil, were recently quashed by the High Court after a legal challenge from the civil rights group Liberty. Cooper's move aims to reintroduce the contentious regulations, which could lead to swifter and stricter punishments for activists due to looser definitions of "serious disruption."

 

 

The original legislation allowed police to impose restrictions on protests when there was merely a "more than minor" hindrance to people's daily lives, lowering the previous threshold that permitted police intervention only when there was a risk of "serious disruption." The new law was introduced through a statutory instrument in the House of Lords after peers had previously rejected the same proposal months earlier in a new public order act. Conventionally, peers do not vote down statutory instruments, allowing this version of the law to come into force. 

 

 

Since the introduction of the looser definition of "serious disruption," hundreds of protesters, including prominent climate activist Greta Thunberg, have been arrested. Liberty won a legal challenge against the Home Office in May, arguing that the regulations were unlawful because they had already been democratically rejected by Parliament a few months earlier. Liberty criticized the government for bringing the law back "via the back door" through "secondary legislation," which allowed less parliamentary scrutiny and debate.

 

The High Court sided with Liberty, finding that the government had failed to conduct a fair consultation process. The court noted that the Home Office had only solicited opinions from those it expected would support the proposed changes, such as the police, while excluding protest groups. The ruling also agreed with Liberty's argument that "more than minor cannot mean serious," effectively nullifying the law under its current wording.

 

Despite this setback, the Home Office has announced its intention to appeal the ruling, expressing concern about the potential impact the judicial review could have on the government’s ability to conduct consultations in the future. If the appeal is successful, the law would be revived, potentially leading to renewed enforcement against protest groups under the more lenient definition of "serious disruption."

 

The government has pledged to carry out a review of protest legislation next year, which could result in further changes. However, the prospect of reviving the law has sparked significant controversy, particularly among Labour politicians who raised concerns about the legislation's potential impact on the right to protest when the party was in opposition.

 

Akiko Hart, the director of Liberty, expressed disappointment over the Home Secretary's decision to continue with the appeal despite the High Court's ruling. She stated, "We are very disappointed that, despite a positive discussion about the impact of the unlawful regulation, the Home Secretary has taken the decision to continue this case.

 

This legislation is undemocratic, unconstitutional and unacceptable. The Home Office’s decision to continue the case shows disregard for the rule of law and completely goes against previous statements from the Government just last month that they would not abuse the use of secondary legislation and that they would promote high standards of governance. With hundreds of people wrongfully arrested and convicted due to this unlawful legislation already, it is not right to continue to carry on with this law that should never have been made in the first place. The only right thing to do would be to quash this legislation once and for all."

 

A spokesperson for the Home Office defended the appeal, stating, "The right to protest is fundamental to our democracy, and all public order legislation must balance this right. However, we disagree with the court’s ruling in this case and have appealed their decision."

 

The outcome of the appeal will determine whether the government can reinstate the more expansive powers for police to curb protests that it initially sought under Suella Braverman. For now, the battle over the future of protest rights in the UK remains highly contentious, with both sides preparing for a potential clash in the courts.

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-30

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[thaibeachlovers]

The battle between the forces of darkness and the forces of freedom is becoming more visible.

[JonnyF]

First locking people up for FaceBook posts, now removing the right to peaceful protest.

 

It would appear that "Liberal" has taken on a new meaning. 

 

It's a good job they are releasing real offenders from the gulag early, in order to make room for people who disagree with them.  

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crg5vp0296eo

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

First locking people up for FaceBook posts, now removing the right to peaceful protest.

 

It would appear that "Liberal" has taken on a new meaning. 

 

It's a good job they are releasing real offenders from the gulag early, in order to make room for people who disagree with them.  

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crg5vp0296eo

 

I don’t recall you complaining when the Tories enacted these restrictions.

 

 

[JonnyF]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t recall you complaining when the Tories enacted these restrictions.

 

 

 

Fish, coffee, tumeric, broccoli are all excellent for boosting memory function. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Fish, coffee, tumeric, broccoli are all excellent for boosting memory function. 

Links are an even better way to refute a statement.

 

 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Links are an even better way to refute a statement.

 

 

 

If I had to go through all my old posts every time you forget something I'd never get any work done. 

 

But at least you are posting on the correct thread this time. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

If I had to go through all my old posts every time you forget something I'd never get any work done. 

 

But at least you are posting on the correct thread this time. 

 But  I haven’t forgotten Jonny.

 

You never objected to the Tories enacting these restrictions.

 

Since you bring your ‘work front’ into discussion, yes it might be a good idea to focus on that, posting while on company time, a bit of a tell on the ‘no focus front’.

 

 

Edited August 30 by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 But  I haven’t forgotten Jonny.

 

Yes you have.

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

You never objected to the Tories enacting these restrictions.

 

Yes I did.

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Since you bring your ‘work front’ into discussion, yes it might be a good idea to focus on that, posting while on company time, a bit of a tell on the ‘no focus front’.

 

 

 

Who mentioned company time? 

[Pouatchee]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

The court noted that the Home Office had only solicited opinions from those it expected would support the proposed changes, such as the police, while excluding protest groups.

 

damn, that sounds just like what the gvt here is doing in order to recriminalize weed...

[JonnyF]

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

The court noted that the Home Office had only solicited opinions from those it expected would support the proposed changes, such as the police, while excluding protest groups.

 

To be fair, they probably had to make sure there were enough available prison spaces before inviting opinions from protest groups who might disagree with their policies.