Announcing a 30-day blanket ban on marches across five London boroughs (Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest, Islington and Hackney), Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday derailed plans for English Defence League (EDL) demonstrations on 3 September. Following a request from Scotland Yard Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin, May took the decision to ban ‘all marches’ after having ‘carefully considered the legal tests in the Public Order Act and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected’. Is this a step too far, illegitimately restricting free speech, or is there a genuine call for pre-emptive action on grounds of preventing public disorder?
Adding another dimension to the already thorny trade-off between liberty and security is the similar ban that May sanctioned in Telford on 13 August amidst similar fears of disorder. The Met, citing receipt of ‘specific intelligence’ which led it to believe that ‘serious public disorder, violence and damage could be caused by the presence of marches in these areas’, suggested that a ban was the most effective avoidance strategy and cemented a dangerous precedent. With many such demonstrations resulting in some degree of violence, both with opposition demonstrators and amongst EDL sympathisers, the argument that all future EDL demonstrations should be outlawed on similar grounds will gain momentum. This would be a clear violation of free speech principles; while the outlook being championed may be abhorrent, such a reaction, flying in the face of liberal democratic values, would prove equally objectionable. Furthermore, drawing attention to the ban not only allows the EDL to portray an image of a subjugated group, but also retracts some of the rope, through prevention of negative press coverage, afforded to the group with which to hang itself. In this respect, an outright ban appears counterintuitive.
With Stephen Lennon, the EDL's founder (also known by the name Tommy Robinson), proclaiming that the EDL would ‘still show up’ in Tower Hamlets, vowing to hold a static demonstration and ‘have our voices heard’, the potential exists for any disorder to be amplified by the ban. While a statement on the EDL website claimed that ‘[n]owadays, the anti-extremism aims of our organisation are clear, and there is no reason to think that an EDL demonstration would contain any dangerous elements’, such contentions are easily refuted by Lennon recently being charged with common assault following an altercation at a demonstration. Similarly, the assertion is fundamentally flawed insofar as the EDL was formed with the specific objective of protesting against the alleged spread of Islamic extremism; with Tower Hamlets playing home to the sizeable East London Mosque and a large Muslim population, any such action is destined to stoke tensions unless it is starved of the oxygen of publicity. Indeed, Lennon has already acknowledged that ‘the police have told us that it will be the most hostile environment they have seen. … They say marching through there will be absolute suicide’. The question then arises as to whether a static meeting similar to that which eventually took place in Telford would pose a greater threat of public disorder than the initial demonstration, with the latter at least having the strategic benefit of wayfaring brevity.
It is indisputably true that disorder in London, in the wake of recent events, would be even more unwelcome than usual. Nonetheless, rumours that budget constraints limiting further police overtime played a part in deliberations, coupled with favourable consideration for a police force under immense strain, would be detestable if proven. Indeed, with the threat of a static demonstration, about which the Met are powerless to act, a visible police presence will likely be required regardless. Equally, spurious links between Anders Behring Breivik and the EDL should not be allowed to carry any weight: many a convicted criminal will undoubtedly have (proven) sympathies to legitimate political groupings.
It would appear, then, that Peter Tatchell was accurate in labelling the blanket ban a ‘complete overreaction’, suggesting that such action has the potential to be vastly counter-productive and correctly asserting that anti-democratic groups can only be defeated through ‘exposing… bigoted and violent views’. (However, his favouring of ‘mass counter protests’ would perhaps be undesirable in this instance, given the history of EDL disorder and the ethnic composition of the area in question.) Indeed, the key to overcoming such divisive views in the long run is a policy of engagement and education, promoting tolerance of all views and allowing those based on prejudice and intolerance to be shown as such. As Thomas Jefferson famously declared, ‘error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it’.
No comments:
Post a Comment