‘Kill the account!”
It was the refrain that has resounded in streets across Britain over the past few weeks as protesters reconsider a comprehensive crime bill that will give police more power to deal with non-violent protests.
Over the past few months, a series of issues have sparked mass protests across Europe: Black Lives Matter demonstrations in cities last summer, protests against security laws in France this autumn, and anti-lockdown marches apparently everywhere.
How the police should handle these mass demonstrations is a topic of heated debate, especially as officers are accused in some cases of aggressive reactions. Restrictions on Coronavirus added another layer to questions about the right balance between the rule of law and the protection of civil liberties.
In Britain, the discussion on the new police bill has been undone.
The proposed legislation has come under criticism in recent weeks following the murder of Sarah Everard, a young woman killed in London after she walked away from a friend’s house that evening, and a subsequent vigilance to honor her which is broken. up by the police.
This is what you need to know about Britain’s police bill and the protest action that it should be suspended.
What would the police bill do?
The bill on police, crime, sentencing and court is a major proposed legislation that provides for a wide range of issues on its nearly 300 pages. The bill would introduce tougher penalties for serious crimes, end the policy of earlier imprisonment for some offenders and prevent unauthorized campsites, among other things, comprehensive measures.
It also gives broad authority to police forces across the country in dealing with protests – and it appears to be a lightning rod.
Under current law, police must first determine that a protest can cause serious public disorder, property damage, or serious disruption to community life before it can impose restrictions.
But the new bill provides much broader powers for the police. This leaves their own discretion and could potentially criminalize protest marches that they see as a ‘public nuisance’.
The police would time and noise restrictions could institute for processions and protesters who breach the restrictions they need to know, even if they do not have a direct command of not receiving an officer is vulnerable to prosecution.
The bill also allows for up to ten years in prison for those who damage memorials. That provision comes months after a statue commemorating a slave trader, Edward Colston, was overturned in Bristol last year during a Black Lives Matter demonstration.
There has already been a setback.
The government maintains that the bill provides for better policing and community protection. Interior Minister Priti Patel said last week that there was a balance between the rights of the protester and the rights of individuals to lead their daily lives. ‘
Opposition lawmakers and rights groups have denounced what they see as a move to broaden the police force and give it potentially problematic powers. Many say they need more time to work through the possible implications.
The Association of Local Governments, a party organization, said certain aspects of the bill, particularly those aimed at public protests, warranted further formal consultation. The group expressed concern that a quick timetable to vote on the bill “left little time to examine the bill in detail.”
The Good Law Project, a British watchdog for the government, said in a briefing that the bill “poses a serious threat to the right to protest”, and that parts of the legislation dealing with protest marches are abandoned .
Why did people now take to the streets?
While rights groups have long been concerned about the police bill and its potential impact on what they say is the key democratic instrument of protest, the legislation was suddenly put in the national spotlight after the murder of Ms. Everard.
The 33-year-old disappeared in a street in London on March 3 and her body was later found in a wooded area. A police officer was charged in her death.
The killings caused a national outcry over violence against women. Then came the day of vigilance.
Officials have been widely criticized for breaking the event on March 12, which is considered illegal due to coronavirus restrictions. Images quickly spread as police pulled in to stop speeches and arrest a group of women exposing violence.
An independent inquiry into the conduct of the police has been launched and the controversy has raised questions about the ban on protests during the pandemic.
Broadly speaking, the police’s heavy response to vigilance has catalyzed the movement against the policing bill and shifted the debate to one on police handover. The vigilance took place a few days before the crime bill was to be discussed in parliament.
According to critics, the problem with the bill is not just that it may give officers more to tackle protests. The bill does not specifically mention violence against women; indeed, it contains more language on how to criminalize the abolition of a law than it does on crimes against people motivated by misogyny.
A number of protests against the bill have been held nationally since the vigilance for Ms. Everard in London. Hundreds of government buildings gathered last week, with crowds parading from Parliament Square to police headquarters in largely peaceful demonstrations. Other protests were held nationally this past weekend.
On Sunday, one of them rioted in Bristol, where a small group of police vehicles caught fire, smashed shop windows and collided with officers. According to police, at least 20 police officers were injured, two seriously and seven were arrested.
What happens next?
The bill had already passed an obstacle in parliament, despite concerns about civil liberties, when it was voted on during its second reading last week amid a heated debate.
Now it goes to the committee, when it is judged in detail, and experts and interest groups can weigh in. When it is over, the committee will report its findings – and perhaps propose amendments – to the House of Commons, where they will be debated again.
But the process has been postponed until later this year.
The government tried to quell the passions caused by the death of Ms. Everard has been set off, to use to pass the policing bill. The comprehensive new police powers it contains, officials say, would make women safer.
But many others have argued that the bill misses the point. The measure, they argue, fails to address the pervasive misogyny at the heart of crimes committed against women, nor does it undermine the right to protest.
As the dispute has intensified, some lawmakers are looking at the bill.
The Labor Party originally intended to abstain from voting on the bill, but last week changed its position to vote against it. David Lammy, a Labor lawmaker who is the opposition party’s spokesman for justice, calls the legislation a mess. ‘
“The tragic death of Sarah Everard has sparked a national demand for action to tackle violence against women,” he said. Lammy said. “This is no time to push us through ill-considered measures to impose disproportionate controls on free speech and the right to protest.”