At a recent debate on the impact of tourism (!) that I attended, the point was well made that Parliament is a tourist attraction because of the historic events that shaped our democracy that happened there but now it is begin turned from a venue for protest to one of pleasure. We need to retain the right to protest that made us what we are today. We are great because of our protests, not despite them.

Why did David Tredinnick need to ask George Young what the future held for the protestors in Parliament Square – couldn’t he just have consulted his magic astrology CD? http://www.libdemvoice.org/tory-claims-for-astrology-cd-15460.html

What are ”the rights of protestors”? I wasn’t sure that there were any partiularly.
Other than vague ones about free speech and the right to assembly.
About camping long term somewhere I don’t know if that should be seen as a ”right”.

Should you be allowed to do a ”homeless Greenham Common” anywhere you chose?
Outside Parliament? Outside Downing Street? Outside Harriet Harman’s house (if you felt so inclined)? Maybe Parlaiment Square should be re-desegnated as a ‘Free Zone’ and become a permanent freshers fair kind of space.
With a bit of Copenhagen’s Christiania neighbourhood thrown in for good measure. And maybe we could get the crusties back too and have them sitting around drinking Special Brew like in the good old days.

There’s a nice little green outside Croydon’s town hall. If I become homeless could I go and pitch my tent on it and protest about something? I’d need a policeman standing by though, as it can be a bit rough around there at night.

So the tories lied again.

They just can’t stop lying. Scum the lot of them.

Ah, the Big Society/small government. When it suits…

What happened to the Freedom Bill (excuse me while I throw up a bit)? Wasn’t that supposed to reverse NL’s civil liberties violations?

As a small L liberal, I am pleased that David Tredinnick asked his obnoxious question. It will provide the coalition an opportunity to demonstrate how liberal they are or are not; for now, I take Sir George Young’s response to indicate that Cameron and Clegg are struggling with the authoritarian tendency.

@3 damon: “What are ‘the rights of protestors’?”

“Rights” are something that lawyers, obsessive libertarians and obsessive lefties argue about. Those debates rarely provide answers about how people compromise and get on with one another.

In a liberal society, some things are technically illegal (eg camping on the street, smoking weed) but law enforcement, the judiciary and politicians turn a blind eye until the offence causes a problem. Let’s assume that the laws against camping on the street were rigidly enforced. Does that mean that anyone who queues up for the Harrods sale overnight in a sleeping bag should be arrested?

Camp sites around the Houses of Parliament are ugly, inconvenient and probably illegal. Those three concerns are trivial and do not present a cause for legal intervention.

The big “rights” (liberty in general) are declared on a multinational or federal level to protect against abuse by a rogue authority. Hot air, mostly. In reality, “rights” are negotiated by citizens living in a liberal society.

I’m going out on a limb here, but: is it really in the interests of democracy that particular campaigning groups should permanently occupy key public spaces? Wouldn’t it be better if such places were kept, well, *public* – so that different groups could assemble there, make their point, and then leave?

If Parliament Square were to be occupied for years on end by people waving placards saying ‘Tax is Theft’, ‘Abortion is Murder’, ‘Homosexuality is a Sin’ and ‘Britain is Full’, would we still be in such a hurry to defend the rights of those protesters to dominate that space permanently, acting as the self-appointed voice of angry grassroots Britain?

“If Parliament Square were to be occupied for years on end by people waving placards saying ‘Tax is Theft’, ‘Abortion is Murder’, ‘Homosexuality is a Sin’ and ‘Britain is Full’, would we still be in such a hurry to defend the rights of those protesters to dominate that space permanently, acting as the self-appointed voice of angry grassroots Britain?”

Hahaha

Should there be a right to *occupy* a public space for weeks/months/years on end?
No.

Up to a week?
Yes.

Should there be a right to *occupy* a public space for weeks/months/years on end?
No.

Up to a week?
Yes.

You know, I always imagined that rights theory was a complex thing. Clearly not. Was it Locke who specified that public protest is legitimate for seven days?

If he didn’t he should have done!

Here is a recent, pertinent case – read from paragraph 36.

Thanks for that ukliberty. These points expressing the Mayor’s position seem well-made and correct to me:

“[T]he effect of the Democracy Village is to prevent the public from exercising their rights over a very significant part of PSG for a prolonged and indefinite period [and] one impact of the Democracy Village has been to exclude others from exercising their right to protest there. The extent and duration of the impact of the Democracy Village on the lawful, reasonable and ordinary activities on PSG is the primary reason for refusing consent”.

“Permissions for other peaceful protests and rallies on Parliament Square Garden are normally limited to a maximum of 3 hours, in order to allow for proper management, to ensure that the day-to-day business of the city is not impeded, and to allow the maximum number of groups or individuals to use the space to exercise their democratic right to peaceful protest. As this period will be extended in appropriate cases, the Mayor is not prepared to permit camping by significant numbers for a prolonged period.”

er a very significant part of PSG for a prolonged and indefinite period [and] one impact of the Democracy Village has been to exclude others from exercising their right to protest there

Rubbish. The people at Democracy Village were actually welcoming of other protests and encouraged people to join them and protest about their own stuff. I know this because I was pissed off with the 9/11 Troofers and yet they defended their right to protest.

Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that that lot welcomed the troofers.

Would they have been as welcoming to, say, the EDL?!

Sunny

“Rubbish. The people at Democracy Village were actually welcoming of other protests and encouraged people to join them and protest about their own stuff. I know this because I was pissed off with the 9/11 Troofers and yet they defended their right to protest.”

I think the Court of Appeal recognised that other protests had taken place, but decided that on balance the Democracy Village was nonetheless impeding other people’s freedom to use the public space they were occupying for the purposes of protest as well as more generally.

Of course it’s possible they got it wrong (though with all due respect, I’m certainly not going to jump to that conclusion purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence).

But the fact remains: it’s not just obvious that if you have the right to protest (or busk, or play football, or whatever) in such-and-such a space, you have the right to do so for as long as you like; in principle at least, you could be getting in the way of other people who have an equal right to use the same space. There certainly *could* be circumstances in which moving a particular group of protesters on was actually in the interests of protesters’ rights more generally.

Rubbish. The people at Democracy Village were actually welcoming of other protests and encouraged people to join them and protest about their own stuff. I know this because I was pissed off with the 9/11 Troofers and yet they defended their right to protest.

This is from people who just thrive on political protest.
Who cares what the people at Democracy Village actually thought?
Wouldn’t it be great if Speaker’s Corner could be moved to Parliament Square?
It would be so much more immediate and relevant than having to wait every week till sunday morning at Marblel Arch.

I see from Sunny’s point @14 though, that this is one of these ideological points that will not change through any arguments that might be had on LC.

Would they have been as welcoming to, say, the EDL?!

Luckily for you cjcjc – I asked that exact question. They said yes, and said a few BNP people had actually come over to try and same tactic and were told they were welcome to join the camp. They never came back.

I like how people don’t actually know what went on and yet are happy to project bollocks on it to justify their authoritarianism.

@16 G.O.: “There certainly *could* be circumstances in which moving a particular group of protesters on was actually in the interests of protesters’ rights more generally.”

I sort of agree but reserve my argument that manners are more pertinent than Rights in a liberal society.

Personally, I fear for the mental health of Brian Haw. I would like it that the coppers and the lawyers agreed that he could have a holiday, and that he could return to his tent after a refreshing break. Or is that idea too liberal?

Sunny

“I asked that exact question. They said yes, and said a few BNP people had actually come over to try and same tactic and were told they were welcome to join the camp. They never came back.

I like how people don’t actually know what went on and yet are happy to project bollocks on it to justify their authoritarianism.”

It’s certainly good to hear that people were practising what they preached.

Still, no-one wanting to protest in a public space should feel they have to rely on the goodwill of people who have, to a greater or lesser extent, taken control of that space.

What if the next group of people to move in don’t take such a balanced view, and are happy to dominate that space to the exclusion of other voices? Is it so hard to imagine that a protest camp might one day spring up that was occupied by people who made everyone else feel too uncomfortable to exercise their own rights to use the space they were occupying?

I stand by my view that it is not *obviously* true that restricting the rights of protestors to occupy public spaces for extended periods of time would have the overall effect of restricting, rather than enhancing, people’s ability to exercise their right to protest – any more than restricting the rights of pub football leagues to take over local parks for whole weekends has the overall effect of restricting, rather than enhancing, people’s ability to play sports in the local park.

I don’t think I’m saying anything controversial here – it’s a basic principle of liberalism, surely, that the point at which it’s legitimate to restrict someone’s rights is the point at which their exercise encroaches on the rights of others. Legislation of this sort *could*, therefore – depending how it was drafted and enforced – be consistent with liberalism.

If they’re so concerned about tourism may I suggest the erection of a public pillory. With George Osborne locked inside it and tomatoes at a pound each, rotten eggs at five pounds and stones at twenty we’ll have the deficit cleared by lunchtime

Inclined to agree with G.O. And suppose you don’t want to be associated with Democracy Village? Suppose that you don’t want your protest confused with Democracy Village? Would Democracy Village be willing to wholly vacate the space for a day, say?