Abstract:
The introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill highlighted the importance of protests and their value and role in UK history. This article relays this importance to the issue of climate change and the impact the Bill could have on future protests. The climate crisis requires urgent action and the restriction set for future protests due to this Bill can have negative impacts on the value of protests in mitigating climate change. Therefore, the importance of protests in fighting the world’s normality in terms of environmental destruction is prudent in the argument that protests are a valuable asset in environmentalist advocating for better protection to aid the climate crisis. Introducing the restrictions set out in the Bill would have a negative effect on the timeline of climate activist progress in government responses and public participation. This article reviews the impact this Bill could have on future protests and why protests are important to climate activists.
Introduction:
The importance of peaceful protests is deeply rooted into our democratic system, which is protected under Article 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998.[1] Peaceful protests have had wide reaching affects leading to global and national change for the better of communities, however, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill threatens to limit protests by increasing police power and reducing the cause of action required for police intervention. Therefore, as proven by the introduction of this Bill, the right to peaceful protests is not absolute and the restriction placed by police on protests may impact the effectiveness and meaning of a protest.[2] The impacts of this Bill can be far reaching in terms of climate change and environmental protection movements that use peaceful protests to further their causes. The risk to climate change is that the issue is urgent and requires activities like peaceful protests and advocacy to push the issue further into public and government discussion, however, the Bill could silence any further meaningful protests that make a different to the climate change crisis.
The impact of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill:
The issue with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is that it allows police to intervene in protests that are deemed a disruption to daily life and that includes being too noisy or protestors locking themselves to property set out in Part 3 of the Bill.[3] Any peaceful protest could be deemed too noisy by the police because the purpose of a protest is to be heard.[4] The police have a duty to protect the public, however, the public have a right to peaceful protests. That means that marching and chanting for a cause is peaceful, and still requires the informative procedure required under the Police Order Act 1986,[5] that requires knowledge and agreement for protests that will be occurring in terms of relevant planning and routes available. If the government cannot respond and allow peaceful protests to occur perhaps a more thorough look into why and who is charging the plight on climate change and how it can be mitigated, instead of looking at how to silence the public over the issue.
Climate change is a unique issue as there is a time limit on the time required to take action to mitigate the problem. The problem is ensuring the damage does not become irreversible, as some of the problems already have with extinction of species and loss of land and life through storms and sea level rise. The damage and issue will only increase with the climate crisis until humanity decides to make a change. Therefore, climate change requires urgent action, which means every protest, donation, beach clean and vote makes a difference to the overall problem and solution to climate change. Therefore, the time limit on the problem only encourages protests as there is a small window for change to ensure the damage can be mitigated. The systems that aid the contribution to climate change need to be challenged, which means protests that impact daily life for people to truly recognise the source of the problem. Everyone contributes to climate change in varying levels, but it must also be acknowledged that people are suffering unjustly at the effects of climate change, therefore, responsibility must be taken in terms of identifying big polluters and protests help identify and shame those people into accepting their involvement. For example, the UK just allowed a bee killing pesticide to be approved and used even though there is science backing the damaging effects it will have on the environment.[6] Therefore, frustrations and no relief in forms like peaceful protests will leave little for climate activists to resort to in order to invoke change.
History has proved that restricting people’s right to protest and freedom of speech only encourages people to accept other means of protest. Climate change requires drastic action that interrupts daily life as history proves protests that cause disruption gets results. The system that we live in contributes significantly to the climate crisis, therefore, the system cannot be the one to fix it. Change is required in every aspect of life, in terms of energy, education, health, transport, farming, construction and even the law. Everybody requires change to their daily lives in order to be more environmentally aware of their carbon footprint, however, companies and governments must reinforce sustainable futures by pursing green innovations, just transitions and focus on more than just economy projections but the future of the planet. The shift to a sustainable future requires a new way of living, but change will not occur if protests are restricted thus silencing events allowing the cause to go unnoticed by governments.
The risk of the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Bill involved powers of police to be able to ban known protestors from future protests.[7] The Bill could change the way protests are conducted meaning that the gathering held in Glasgow for Cop26 would have been in breach of the new Bill. People like Greta Thunberg could be deemed to breach these laws in terms of noise and disrupting school systems, but does that seem moral with all the good that has come out of her advocacy for her actions to be reprehended for future generations in the UK.[8] Movements like the suffragettes and Black Lives Matter will be impacted even though the cause is so crucial to communities. The idea of peaceful protests does not diminish the importance of safety for the public and the police, for example, it does not condone impacting peoples access to healthcare or emergency services performing their duties.[9] Peaceful protests are carried out in a safe manner with the polices knowledge and agreement on routes. Locking a person to a building has been used for generations of activists across the world, but that would be against the rules set out in the Bill.
An example is the suffragettes who fought for women’s right to vote in the UK. However, it is not common knowledge that there were two groups of women advocates: the suffragists and suffragettes. The suffragists were women who sought to gain the vote through peaceful protests and lobbying government, but the process was longwinded and did not receive the desired results from MP’s causing the suffragettes to form. The law and government were made for a man’s world, meaning that women’s right to vote would not have succeeded in terms of lobbying MP’s. This is similar for climate change as the world order is built to gain from environmental degradation, which begs the question of how environmental justice can be achieved through the system if it was built to gain from harvesting the world’s resources unsustainably. Arguably the right for women to vote would have occurred but not for generations and at a slower rate compared to the success of the suffragette’s movement. The suffragettes conducted protests that resulted in damage to property, chaining themselves to buildings, and boycotting services. The suffragettes were imprisoned and deemed criminals but when we look back at history they are viewed in a different light, seeking the right for women to vote and equality in the law is a just cause. Therefore, criminalising the activists instead of focusing on the true issue led to unnecessary suffering which should be considered before further restrictions can be placed on protests by police. The suffragettes forced the government to comply and listen to their views, without the protests and rally’s women’s rights would not be where it is today. The role of protests had played an equal role in the progression of climate activism, but the introduction of the Bill restrictions could halt the activist’s progression in achieving environmental protection.
Conclusion:
Comentarios