10th November 2011
The Protection of Freedoms Bill – Good and Bad Latest
Mark Hanson
The Government’s flagship civil liberties and human rights Bill, named the Protection of Freedoms Bill by the Coalition, made successful passage through the House of Commons, having its third and final Commons reading on the 11th October 2011. This was not unexpected as being a government Bill it had the full support of the government whips and government authority behind it. There was never any expectation that there would be any sort of rebellion over the Bill.
There were, however, some grave concerns at the methods the government used to thwart some important amendments, and the amendments put forward by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, were in many respects to be considered illiberal and not fitting for a Bill with such a grand name announcing protection of freedoms.
The very important amendment that would have seen the removal of the extremely low-threshold term “insulting” from the restrictions on free speech contained in the Public Order Act 1986 and an amendment to repeal the equally oppressive measures of aggravated trespass, were not even debated as the government placed those amendments at such a late part of the proceedings that they were not called for a vote.
“Insulting” language has seen upright members of the community being arrested for expressing religious views, and the offence of aggravated trespass has recently been used against those engaged in political dissent, such as the UKUncut activists arrested during March 2011. The good news is, however, that as the Bill begins its journey through the House of Lords, some Peers have raised these important issues, and given the Lords traditional love for civil liberties (a number of pieces of anti-freedom legislation introduced by the last Labour administration were severely neutered by Lords amendments, such as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which, though a grotesque precedent, was rendered virtually sterile by a free speech clause) it is likely that these amendments will, at the least, be seriously considered.
In the Lords the first debate on the Bill took place on the 8th November. Opposing many measures in the Bill, Baroness Royall (a Labour peer and Leader of the Opposition in the Lords) said: “Some parts of the Bill present us with a stark choice not between freedom and the Orwellian state but between tiresome, sometimes intrusive inconveniences and increasing the risks to public safety.” It is sad that Labour still do not understand the seriousness of the provisions they brought in which the Bill seeks to redress. Indeed, other peers were far more aware of how the creep of legislation and information gathering is “a stark choice…between freedom and the Orwellian state.”
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat) made the points that “thinking about today's debate, one characteristic of fascist regimes seems to have been an obsessive collection and retention of information.”
The Bishop of Bristol stated as the introduction to his speech:
“My Lords, the word "freedom" is a heady one. Throughout the ages people have struggled to resist and overthrow oppression, most recently in the so-called Arab spring. Freedom from violence, intimidation, unjust treatment and arbitrary interference by others, especially by the state, is clearly good. But freedom, having been gained, needs constantly to be protected, and in recent years Governments have become a little careless about this. That is what prompts this Bill and for that reason I welcome it.”
He does then suggest a condition to his statement: “The law has to attempt a balancing act, protecting freedoms, because they are essential to human flourishing, and where necessary restricting them in the public interest.”
The Bishop is the one who raised the issue of “insulting” language, and is one area where he expressed concern at the detail, or in this case lack of inclusion, of important parts in the Bill. Whilst he stated that he does “support the general direction of this Bill,” he did raise some important parts to be debated. It is to be hoped that the amendment of Section 5 on “insulting” language will be further debated in the House.
On the issue of aggravated trespass, it was Baroness Miller to speak:
“I am disappointed that there is no amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 so that it recognises peaceful protest as a fundamental part of democracy. It leaves in place the "aggravated trespass" offence. That was recently employed, for example, against all the individuals who were peacefully protesting with UK Uncut at Fortnum & Mason earlier this year in March. That use of "aggravated trespass" is an affront to the concept of peaceful protest.”
These comments by the Lords are most welcome, as is the general thrust of the Bill, and one would want to hope that as the Bill progresses, we might, in the words of Baroness Miller, see “a very important first step in addressing what privacy and freedoms should mean in the 21st century.”
