FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > United Nations critical of Public Order Bill
United Nations critical of Public Order Bill
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *irldn OP Couple
over a year ago
Brighton |
GENEVA (27 April 2023) - The Public Order Bill, which has now been passed by Parliament in the United Kingdom, is deeply troubling legislation that is incompatible with the UK’s international human rights obligations regarding people’s rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned on Thursday.
“This new law imposes serious and undue restrictions on these rights that are neither necessary nor proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose as defined under international law. This law is wholly unnecessary as UK police already have the powers to act against violent and disruptive demonstrations,” Türk said.
“It is especially worrying that the law expands the powers of the police to stop and search individuals, including without suspicion; defines some of the new criminal offences in a vague and overly broad manner; and imposes unnecessary and disproportionate criminal sanctions on people organizing or taking part in peaceful protests,” he added.
The High Commissioner drew particular attention to Serious Disruption Prevention Orders introduced by the law that allow UK courts to ban affected individuals from being in certain places at certain times; being with particular people; or using the internet in certain ways, and could lead to the individual in question being electronically monitored to ensure compliance. It is especially concerning that such orders can be made against people who have never been convicted of any criminal offence.
“Governments are obliged to facilitate peaceful protests, while, of course, protecting the public from serious and sustained disruption. But the grave risk here is that these orders pre-emptively limit someone’s future legitimate exercise of their rights,” the High Commissioner said.
“I am also concerned that the law appears to target in particular peaceful actions used by those protesting about human rights and environmental issues. As the world faces the triple planetary crises of climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution, governments should be protecting and facilitating peaceful protests on such existential topics, not hindering and blocking them,” Türk stressed.
“The passage of this Bill regrettably weakens human rights obligations, which the country has long championed in international fora. I call on the UK Government to reverse this legislation as soon as feasible,” he said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Yeah it's horrendous.
Labour appear to be unwilling to commit to repealing this should they get into power. It would seem they're equally enthusiastic about restrictions on the right to express dissent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"GENEVA (27 April 2023) - The Public Order Bill, which has now been passed by Parliament in the United Kingdom, is deeply troubling legislation that is incompatible with the UK’s international human rights obligations regarding people’s rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned on Thursday.
“This new law imposes serious and undue restrictions on these rights that are neither necessary nor proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose as defined under international law. This law is wholly unnecessary as UK police already have the powers to act against violent and disruptive demonstrations,” Türk said.
“It is especially worrying that the law expands the powers of the police to stop and search individuals, including without suspicion; defines some of the new criminal offences in a vague and overly broad manner; and imposes unnecessary and disproportionate criminal sanctions on people organizing or taking part in peaceful protests,” he added.
The High Commissioner drew particular attention to Serious Disruption Prevention Orders introduced by the law that allow UK courts to ban affected individuals from being in certain places at certain times; being with particular people; or using the internet in certain ways, and could lead to the individual in question being electronically monitored to ensure compliance. It is especially concerning that such orders can be made against people who have never been convicted of any criminal offence.
“Governments are obliged to facilitate peaceful protests, while, of course, protecting the public from serious and sustained disruption. But the grave risk here is that these orders pre-emptively limit someone’s future legitimate exercise of their rights,” the High Commissioner said.
“I am also concerned that the law appears to target in particular peaceful actions used by those protesting about human rights and environmental issues. As the world faces the triple planetary crises of climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution, governments should be protecting and facilitating peaceful protests on such existential topics, not hindering and blocking them,” Türk stressed.
“The passage of this Bill regrettably weakens human rights obligations, which the country has long championed in international fora. I call on the UK Government to reverse this legislation as soon as feasible,” he said."
England, the end of serfdom began with the Peasants' Revolt in 1381. It had largely died out in England by 1500 as a personal status and was fully ended when Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574.
Were we ever truly set free or just an elaborate PR job, still like lambs to the slaughter when it comes to our freedom, sad really baaaaaaa.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you didn’t know the above press release from the UN was about the UK you would assume they are talking about a banana republic in the third world. Not the “home of democracy”."
The law is an ill-considered knee jerk reaction to try and address the weakness of our police and judicial system.
Existing laws were perfectly adequate but were not enforced.
Too much care has been taken to protect demonstrators recently. Some drivers were prosecuted for nudging demonstrators with their cars whereas the demonstrators got let off.
Cause an obstruction by gluing yourself to the road and the minimum consequence should be that you leave some of your skin behind as you are removed quickly and not too gently. Then ideally a fine and prison term would follow. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"If you didn’t know the above press release from the UN was about the UK you would assume they are talking about a banana republic in the third world. Not the “home of democracy”.
The law is an ill-considered knee jerk reaction to try and address the weakness of our police and judicial system.
Existing laws were perfectly adequate but were not enforced.
Too much care has been taken to protect demonstrators recently. Some drivers were prosecuted for nudging demonstrators with their cars whereas the demonstrators got let off.
Cause an obstruction by gluing yourself to the road and the minimum consequence should be that you leave some of your skin behind as you are removed quickly and not too gently. Then ideally a fine and prison term would follow."
Trouble is you are providing an extreme example that most people would agree with and that then feels like a justification and support for the Bill. However, as witnessed on Saturday, the level of interpretation means we now have the very real spectre of police overreach which is anti democratic. The UN think so anyway! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you didn’t know the above press release from the UN was about the UK you would assume they are talking about a banana republic in the third world. Not the “home of democracy”.
The law is an ill-considered knee jerk reaction to try and address the weakness of our police and judicial system.
Existing laws were perfectly adequate but were not enforced.
Too much care has been taken to protect demonstrators recently. Some drivers were prosecuted for nudging demonstrators with their cars whereas the demonstrators got let off.
Cause an obstruction by gluing yourself to the road and the minimum consequence should be that you leave some of your skin behind as you are removed quickly and not too gently. Then ideally a fine and prison term would follow.
Trouble is you are providing an extreme example that most people would agree with and that then feels like a justification and support for the Bill. However, as witnessed on Saturday, the level of interpretation means we now have the very real spectre of police overreach which is anti democratic. The UN think so anyway! "
I agree that the bill is unnecessary and can't be justified.
However, I do think that my point is valid as to where it came from. Ill considered and knee jerk was my comment.
There are too many entitled knobheads who cause huge disruption for little gain. Roads, snooker, art etc. The existing law has not been applied harshly enough to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you ignore media scaremongering for a moment, who here is actually fearful of the police? Seriously, what do you think they are they going to do?"
Rape , sexual assault, wrong full arrest, racism, misogynism, murder etc etc, all committed by serving police officers
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"If you ignore media scaremongering for a moment, who here is actually fearful of the police? Seriously, what do you think they are they going to do?
Rape , sexual assault, wrong full arrest, racism, misogynism, murder etc etc, all committed by serving police officers
"
Are you seriously suggesting we should fear this from every police officer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"If you ignore media scaremongering for a moment, who here is actually fearful of the police? Seriously, what do you think they are they going to do?"
It isn’t (for me) about being fearful of the police because currently there is nothing I would feel compelled to protest about. But there might be one day.
Go back 20 years and I marched in protest against the second Iraq War. A million people. Very disruptive. That could be stopped now. I don’t think that is right in a democracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you ignore media scaremongering for a moment, who here is actually fearful of the police? Seriously, what do you think they are they going to do?
Rape , sexual assault, wrong full arrest, racism, misogynism, murder etc etc, all committed by serving police officers
Are you seriously suggesting we should fear this from every police officer? "
Definitely not , it only takes a few rotten apples |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you didn’t know the above press release from the UN was about the UK you would assume they are talking about a banana republic in the third world. Not the “home of democracy”.
The law is an ill-considered knee jerk reaction to try and address the weakness of our police and judicial system.
Existing laws were perfectly adequate but were not enforced.
Too much care has been taken to protect demonstrators recently. Some drivers were prosecuted for nudging demonstrators with their cars whereas the demonstrators got let off.
Cause an obstruction by gluing yourself to the road and the minimum consequence should be that you leave some of your skin behind as you are removed quickly and not too gently. Then ideally a fine and prison term would follow."
I would be opposed to corporal punishment for protestors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"GENEVA (27 April 2023) - The Public Order Bill, which has now been passed by Parliament in the United Kingdom, is deeply troubling legislation that is incompatible with the UK’s international human rights obligations regarding people’s rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned on Thursday.
“This new law imposes serious and undue restrictions on these rights that are neither necessary nor proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose as defined under international law. This law is wholly unnecessary as UK police already have the powers to act against violent and disruptive demonstrations,” Türk said.
“It is especially worrying that the law expands the powers of the police to stop and search individuals, including without suspicion; defines some of the new criminal offences in a vague and overly broad manner; and imposes unnecessary and disproportionate criminal sanctions on people organizing or taking part in peaceful protests,” he added.
The High Commissioner drew particular attention to Serious Disruption Prevention Orders introduced by the law that allow UK courts to ban affected individuals from being in certain places at certain times; being with particular people; or using the internet in certain ways, and could lead to the individual in question being electronically monitored to ensure compliance. It is especially concerning that such orders can be made against people who have never been convicted of any criminal offence.
“Governments are obliged to facilitate peaceful protests, while, of course, protecting the public from serious and sustained disruption. But the grave risk here is that these orders pre-emptively limit someone’s future legitimate exercise of their rights,” the High Commissioner said.
“I am also concerned that the law appears to target in particular peaceful actions used by those protesting about human rights and environmental issues. As the world faces the triple planetary crises of climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution, governments should be protecting and facilitating peaceful protests on such existential topics, not hindering and blocking them,” Türk stressed.
“The passage of this Bill regrettably weakens human rights obligations, which the country has long championed in international fora. I call on the UK Government to reverse this legislation as soon as feasible,” he said."
The line in your quote about the government have to facilitate protests but at the same time protect the public from serious and sustained disruption is the tricky bit I think. It is also been in the news recently with to stop oil protests. I saw a bit on tv the other week asking when does one law trump another. Apparently it's against the law to block roads but also people have the right to hold a protest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Unless you are planning on causing disruption to public highways you have nothing to worry about from what we can gather. That's what we mean when we said who is fearful of the police.
Don't be so quick to prop up the UN as the benchmark for morals either. Its nothing more than an international body used to pressure countries to do things that their natives find unpalatable or promote things that the elites find want to achieve.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
