During the latest round of student protests in London, the Metropolitan Police decided to restrain the movement of the protestors for fear of further damage to property and risk to people, whether involved in the protest and not - this form of riot control can be very uncomfortable and it has been called 'kettling'.
Some of the protestors call the technique 'absolutely outrageous' - but some commentators disagree, concluding that it is 'just boring, even for the police'.
The sadness of the criminal and violent acts that were committed by a not insubstantial number of people at Millbank two weeks ago is that the Metropolitan Police found themselves in the difficult position of having failed in their sometimes impossibly conflicting tasks of facilitating the legitimate (protest) while preventing the illegal (mostly criminal damage, but it does, on occasion, go further).
I am intensely uncomfortable at the thought that thousands of young people, including teenagers, can be held against their will without access to basic facilities for several hours, especially when the protests are taking place in the coldest period of the year ... it offends my sense that people should be permitted to protest as freely as possible.
But, and it is a big 'but', two weeks ago, the Police were faced by a protest where the organisers either lost control of their protest, or where they intended some in the protest to break the law ... and having experienced that, the Police have a obligation to see what they can do to prevent repetition.
I should add that where individual policemen (it tends to be men) indulge in violence themselves, then they need to be held to account for their actions; with swift criminal action being taken against them if necessary.
Students (indeed anyone) who protest(s) do not have the right to damage property belonging to anyone else. That some of the student leaders appear not to understand this basic proposition rather reduces the impact, both of the protest and of the student leaders themselves. The real cause of the change in tactics by the Metropolitan Police are the past actions of the protestors themselves and the failure of the leaders of the protests to control the message that they want to send and the manner in which that message is sent ... if they get their control structures right, then I suspect that the Police will not resort to 'kettling' the protestors who participate.
Monday, 29 November 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
But if I went to the protest, (not this one, I don't agree with them), I would not be under the control of the organiser.
I'd be an individual. I would do no damage. I would not consent to being detained unlawfully.
A protest is not an entity. It is many people, all of them free.
I believe I have a right and a duty to peacefully protest. I never have done in a group, but that's not the point. If protest is a privelege which can be curtailed, it's worthless.
If damage is done by vandals under the cover of a protest, that cannot give the authorities the right to prevent protest.
Protesters ARE a nuisance. That's the point. Most of them a re shallow and self-intereted, but that doesn't matter.
I'm uncomfortable with any notion of using the past actions of protesters as the basis for using these sort of tactics. It's using somebody else's crimes as an excuse to restrict important freedoms. An as and when approach ought to be used, in my opinion.
Zaphod; what is the role of the organiser then? Surely they have some responsibility for the event they have organised?
Tim; I am too. But experience is the author of these tactics ... and it is inevitable that experience will inform the police as to how to carry out their tasks.
No organiser can be responsible for the actions of everyone at a protest. It would be simpler if they could, but they can't.
If an organiser incites violence or damage though, then they will be probably be breaking the law.
But I am not an organiser, and I cannot be detained unless there is reasonable suspicion that I personally have committed an offence.
There is always a trade-off between security and freedom. Neither can be absolute. But we are used to freedom, and many people have forgotten how important it is.
That's my position. Others disagree. Some of those may come to regret it. Some won't.
Post a Comment