“Kill the bill!“
This has been the refrain that has echoed on the streets across Britain in recent weeks, as protesters demanded a rethink of a comprehensive crime bill that would give the police more power to deal with nonviolent demonstrations.
In the past few months, a number of issues have sparked mass protests across Europe: Black Lives Matter demonstrations in cities last summer, protests against security laws in France last fall and anti-lockdown demonstrations seemingly everywhere.
How the police should deal with these mass demonstrations has become a hotly debated topic, especially as police have been accused in some cases of overly aggressive responses. Coronavirus restrictions added another layer to questions about the right balance between the rule of law and the protection of civil liberties.
In Britain, this discussion focused on the new police bill.
The proposed legislation has come under intense criticism in recent weeks, after the murder of Sarah Everard, a young woman who was murdered in London after walking home from a friend’s house at night, and a subsequent vigil to honor her that was interrupted by police.
Here’s what you need to know about Britain’s policing bill and the protests that require it to be shelved.
What would the policing law do?
The bill on police, crime, sentence and court is an immense proposal for legislation that provides for a wide range of issues in its nearly 300 pages. The bill would introduce tougher penalties for serious crimes, end a policy of early release from prison for some offenders and prevent unauthorized camps, among other sweeping measures.
It also gives ample authority to police forces across the country when it comes to dealing with protests – and this has proven to be a lightning rod.
Under current law, the police must first determine that a demonstration can result in serious public disorder, damage to property or serious disturbances in the life of the community before imposing restrictions.
But the new bill would offer much broader powers to the police. This will leave much to their discretion and potentially allow them to criminalize protests that they consider “a public nuisance”.
The police would be allowed to set time and noise limits for the rallies, and protesters who do not follow the restrictions they “should” be aware of, even if they did not receive a direct order from a police officer, would be vulnerable to lawsuits.
The bill also allows those who damage memorials to be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. That provision comes months after a statue in honor of a slave trader, Edward Colston, was knocked down in Bristol last year, during a Black Lives Matter demonstration.
There has already been resistance.
The government says the bill provides for better policing and community protection. Priti Patel, the interior minister, said last week that there was “a balance to be struck between the rights of the protester and the rights of individuals to carry out their daily lives”.
Opposition lawmakers and human rights groups have denounced what they see as a move to give the police overly broad and potentially problematic powers. Many say they need more time to work out the potential implications.
The Local Government Association, a multi-party organization, said that certain aspects of the bill, particularly those focused on public protests, “justify more formal consultations”. The group expressed concern that a hasty timetable for voting on the project “left little time to examine it in sufficient detail”.
The Good Law Project, a British governance watchdog, said in a statement that the bill “poses a serious threat to the right to protest” and called for the parts of the legislation dealing with protests to be withdrawn.
Why are people taking to the streets now?
While human rights groups have long been concerned about the law on policing and its potential impact on what they say is the essential democratic tool of protest, the legislation has suddenly been put in the spotlight after Everard’s assassination.
The 33-year-old woman disappeared on a London street on March 3 and her body was later found in a wooded area. A police officer was charged with his death.
The murder sparked a national outcry about violence against women. Then the day of the watch came.
Police officers were widely criticized for interrupting the March 12 event, which was considered illegal because of restrictions on the coronavirus. The images spread quickly showing the police moving to interrupt speeches and arrest a group of women who denounced the violence.
An independent investigation was launched into the conduct of the police, and the controversy raised questions about the ban on protests during the pandemic.
More broadly, the police’s violent response to the vigil has catalyzed the movement against the policing bill, shifting the debate to one about the police’s exaggeration. The vigil came just days before the crime bill was set to be debated in Parliament.
The problem with the project, critics say, is not just giving police more power to contain the demonstrations. The bill makes no specific mention of violence against women – in fact, it includes more language on how to criminalize the disfigurement of a law than on crimes against human beings motivated by misogyny.
Several protests against the project have been held nationwide since Everard’s vigil in London. Last week, hundreds gathered in front of government buildings, with crowds marching from Parliament Square to police headquarters in peaceful demonstrations. Other protests were held nationwide last weekend.
On Sunday, one of them became in turmoil in Bristol, where a small group set fire to police vehicles, smashed shop windows and clashed with police. At least 20 policemen were injured, two seriously and seven were arrested, according to the police.
What happens next?
The bill has already passed an obstacle in Parliament, despite concerns about civil liberties, when it was voted on at its second reading last week amid heated debate.
Now it goes to the committee, when it will be evaluated in detail, and experts and interest groups can give their opinion. When this is over, the committee will report its findings – and perhaps suggest amendments – to the House of Commons, where it will be debated again.
But that process was postponed until the end of this year.
The government tried to use the passions unleashed by Everard’s death to secure the passing of the policing bill. The new comprehensive police powers it contains, the authorities argue, would make women safer.
But many others have argued that the project is wrong. The measure, they argue, does not address the widespread misogyny that is at the heart of the crimes committed against women, as well as undermining the right to protest.
As the dispute has heated up, some lawmakers are taking a fresh look at the bill.
The Labor Party had originally planned to abstain from voting on the bill, but changed its position last week to vote against it. David Lammy, a labor lawmaker who is the spokesman for the justice of the opposition party, called the legislation “a mess”.
“Sarah Everard’s tragic death prompted a national demand for actions to address violence against women,” said Lammy. “This is not the time to take poorly thought-out measures to impose disproportionate controls on freedom of expression and the right to protest.”