Fined for having a picnic.....

Yesterday a man was fined £500 for having a picnic in Parliament Square. The reasons behind this seemingly farcical fine lie in S.132(1)(b) of the Serious Crimes & Police Act 2005. This makes it an offence to take part in a demonstration in a public place in a designated area without prior authorisation under S.134(2). The ‘offence’ in question took place in Parliament Square on 28th August 2005. Parliament Square is now a designated protest free zone under the "Serious Crimes and Police Act" as "unrestricted exercise of freedom of expression close to the centre of Government and Parliament poses a threat to democratic freedom" (a quote from the judge in the case).

So, apparently, exercising your legal, moral and human right to freedom of congregation, freedom of expression and freedom to protest opposite the Houses of Parliament now constitutes a threat to democratic freedom. And in order to protect this democratic freedom it has been necessary to curtail the democratic freedom of groups and individuals to exercise their freedom democratically. The clearly Orwellian nature of this doublespeak aside, I would proffer only one question: which seems more free and democratic at this point in time? The Houses of Parliament (a bunch of predominantly white middle class men elected under an unfair and undemocratic voting system to represent the queen, our head of state, aided and abetted by a bunch of uber-rich white upper middle class men in gowns and wigs who aren’t even elected – which is to say The Lords) or ordinary members of society gathering peacefully outside their seat of ‘representative’ government to gently suggest that ‘our’ government listen to our views and, say, stop the illegal war to impose ‘democracy’ in Iraq? Perhaps the constant presence of dissenting voices outside their cosy parliamentary offices is finally beginning to upset the residents at Westminster.

After all, it is widely recognised that the original legislation banning protest outside our seat of government was bought in to try to remove Brian Haw. Brian Haw is an anti-war protestor who has been camping out in Parliament Square since 2001 (yup, that’s right, he’s been sleeping on some cardboard laid out on the pavement for over 5 years to protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq), displaying such threatening placards as ‘Don’t Attack Iraq’ and ‘Troops Home Now’. This has clearly upset the conscience of our members of parliament so much that they have designated such radical and dangerous protests as "Serious Crimes" and legislated to ban every UK citizen from protesting with a mile of the Houses of Parliament.

But back to Mark Barrat, the unfortunate man facing a £500 whole in his bank balance for having a picnic in the designated no protest zone. Mark's court case took up just one afternoon of court time, and he represented himself and did not contest any of the 'facts' of the case. His defence was twofold: first - did a picnic by a campaigning group and a banner-making workshop (with no planned demonstration that day) really constitute a demonstration in terms of the law? and second - did the use of this law really accord with human rights legislation in terms of the rights of freedom of expression and free assembly?

The SOCPA (2005) act does not define a demonstration, and so the judge’s written verdict relied on a dictionary definition and seemed to imply that since Mark was known as a campaigner against this draconian legislation, and as the campaign held picnics each week on Parliament Square, then being at that picnic was of itself a demonstration. This interpretation has huge human rights significance. It would suggest that the designated zone is pretty much a no-go area for anyone who holds political views - any attempt at meeting others or having political or campaigning discussions could be met by arrest, not insignificant fines, and a criminal record for life!

Indeed a further protestor, peace campaigner Milan Rai, is in Bow Street Magistrates Court next week facing the even more serious charge of being the organiser of a protest within the no-protest zone around Westminster. He faces a fine of up to £5000 and a maximum of five years in jail. And his alleged crime? Milan and a co-campaigner stood in the middle of Parliament Square and quietly and solemnly read out the names of all those killed in Iraq – US and UK soldiers and Iraqi civilians. And, in the name of protecting the democratic freedom of Parliament (as laid out in the SOCPA legislation) Milan Rai now faces the very real threat of an extended stay at her majesty’s pleasure for having the temerity to utter the names of the war dead close enough to Parliament to trouble the conscience of those upholders of freedom and democracy who therein reside