|
|
Why I'd join the nutty protester
in Parliament Square Like most Londoners, I have had plenty of cause
over the years to curse political Brian Haw is a pain in the neck for a different reason. He is the lone eccentric who has kept a 24-hour vigil in Parliament Square, opposite the gates of the Commons, for the past four years. I cannot remember what exactly it was that first prompted him to leave Redditch in Worcestershire, where he was a carpenter, to set up camp at Westminster. These days, he concentrates on protesting against the war in Iraq, which began long after he started demonstrating. His favourite chant is "45 minutes to Mr B-Liar", which he bellows, all day long, through a megaphone. He doesn't hold up the traffic. But his one-man shanty town of placards is an eyesore, scarring the finest tourist attraction in the capital. It was because Mr Haw was such a pain that MPs made very little fuss when David Blunkett, in his days as Home Secretary, sneaked a clause into his Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which comes into full force on August 1. The new law gives ministers the power to draw up an exclusion zone, anywhere within a kilometre of Parliament Square, in which demonstrators are to be banned from protesting without permission from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. True, the commissioner is obliged by the Act to authorise any demonstration of which he has been given at least six days' notice, where that is "reasonably practicable", or 24 hours' where it is not. But, crucially, he has the power to impose conditions on the demo. He can say, for example, that it should last for no longer than half an hour. He can lay down a maximum number of demonstrators, or ban the use of megaphones. The purpose of this new law, we were told when it was going through Parliament, was purely and simply to get rid of the irritating Mr Haw. Everything else had been tried. Westminster council had sought an injunction to evict him - but this was overruled by a judge, on the grounds that Mr Haw was not causing an obstruction. In May last year, the Commons Procedure Committee scoured the statute book in the hope of finding some long-forgotten law, under which the nutty protester could be forced to pack up his placards and go home to Worcestershire. But no luck. Mr Haw was not contravening the ancient statute that guarantees MPs safe passage through the streets of Westminster, nor any other law. He was just a bloody nuisance, acting perfectly within his rights. But if the purpose of Clause 134 of the new Act
was only to get rid of Mr Haw, its effect That means that if you or I should take it into our heads to stand on the other side of the Thames from the Commons, and announce to the tourists queuing for the London Eye that we disapprove of closing grammar schools, the police will be entitled to arrest us (unless, of course, we have given six days' notice of our intention to the Met commissioner). This is not only a mad law, but an extremely bad one. I am not saying that the police would actually be barmy enough to arrest you or me, in the circumstances that I have just described. But the very fact that they would be entitled to do so is an outrage. The right to demonstrate peacefully, without the permission of the Government or its agents, is an absolutely fundamental part of our democracy. Elections and opinion polls may measure the numbers of people who support a particular party or policy. But only demonstrations and protest marches can show the strength with which people hold their convictions. It is one thing to stroll round the corner on election day and put a cross on a ballot paper. We can all do that, whether or not we care very strongly which candidate should win. But to join a protest march on Parliament requires vastly more time and commitment, and shows a strength of feeling that no ballot can. The actual numbers of people who supported the Countryside Alliance in its campaign to stop the ban on foxhunting were not all that enormous, as a proportion of the electorate. But the fact that so many of them were prepared to go to the trouble of organising coach trips to Westminster from Aberdeen and Penzance, and marching all the way to London from Wales and Yorkshire, showed the sheer passion with which they held their views. All right, the campaign failed. But there were many MPs representing urban constituencies who simply didn't realise how strongly people felt, before the marchers arrived in Parliament Square. At least the marchers made them think - and that can only be good for an MP. Politicians are insulated quite enough, as it is, from the people whom they represent. They are insulated by their index-linked pensions, their generous expenses and secretarial allowances, by the concrete tank-traps outside the Commons and the cheap beer inside. This new Act, with its powers to restrict the numbers and noise of demonstrators, can only cut them off further. I wonder what the young, idealistic Tony Blair would have thought if somebody had told him in his student days, as he strummed his guitar and campaigned against apartheid and the Bomb, that one day he would restrict the freedom of British subjects to demonstrate. What would he have thought, come to that, if he had been told that he would introduce house arrest, restrict the right to trial by jury and try to force all British subjects to carry identity cards? Mr Haw may be a nuisance and a pain. But suddenly I feel the urge to join him in Parliament Square. Who is up for a mass demonstration, supporting the freedom to demonstrate? |
home | about Brian's protest | current news | photos, audio & film | join email support list | contact | donate