Police accused of overkill in handling Christian peace protestor
-26/05/06
The authorit
Police accused of overkill in handling Christian peace protestor
-26/05/06
The authorities and the Metropolitan Police are being accused of stifling protest and of “huge overkill” after 78 officers were used in the operation to remove placards from the anti-war demonstrator Brian Haw, an evangelical Christian, who has been camped outside parliament for 1,819 days.
The early-morning raid on Tuesday cost £7,200 of public money. Its aim was to dismantle a wall of banners and flags on Parliament Square, outside the House of Commons, after a court overturned an earlier appeal by Mr Haw.
Members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, which oversees the Met, have strongly criticised the scale and style of the action.
According to The Independent newspaper, one member, Damien Hockney, said it gave the impression that Britain was “suppressing dissent by people opposed to the Iraq war”. Another said it had brought the force into “disrepute”.
The raid followed a notice issued under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act requiring Mr Haw, who began his protest in 2001, to limit it to 10 feet of pavement.
The House of Commons was persuaded by the government to change the law especially to make Mr Hawís protest illegal, so irritated were PM Tony Blair and other supporters of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The same law has been used to suppress other demonstrations ñ including most recently one concerned with the treatment of Palestinians.
Limited access rights can be granted at 24 hours notice, but protestors say that when urgent issues arise this is insufficient ñ and militates against the spirit of what claims to be the ëmother of parliamentsí.
Lord Tope, a Liberal Democrat and member of the police authority, said: “Some may find Brian Haw and his activities irritating, but being an irritant is a fundamental part of our democracy. It brings the Met into a bit of disrepute – 78 police officers arriving in the middle of the night to clear placards and chase mice. I really think it was huge overkill.”
Mr Haw is due to appear at Bow Street magistrates’ court next Tuesday, charged with breaching his conditions to demonstrate in the square.
Parliamentary Early Day Motion number 2126 has been tabled supporting the campaignerís right to protest.
It reads: ì[T]his House notes the verdict of Monday 9 May [2006] in the case of Brian Haw, peace protestor in Parliament Square for over four and a half years, which overturned the original High Court ruling allowing him to continue his peace vigil; notes with concern that Mr Haw may now be forced to end his protest should the Police Commissioner fail to grant him permission to remain; further notes that Mr Haw’s silent protest causes no hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament, nor does it create a public disorder; further notes that this House owes Mr Haw a debt of gratitude for his long-term active engagement in democracy; believes that Mr Haw should be allowed to remain in Parliament Square; and calls upon the Government to nurture engagement by the public with politicians and to support the democratic right of all to protest where they can be seen by Hon. Members.î
Brian Hawís campaign website can be found here.
[Also on Ekklesia: Police seize Christian’s anti-war placards 23/05/06; Condoleezza Rice faces anti-war protests at Christian college 25/05/06; Cindy Sheehan meets Christian protestor Brian Haw; Christian anti-war protester wins in High Court; Christian anti-war protester loses battle to continue vigil; London protest ban demo sparked by Christian campaigner; Peace camp to be set up opposite Parliament]
Police accused of overkill in handling Christian peace protestor
-26/05/06
The authorities and the Metropolitan Police are being accused of stifling protest and of “huge overkill” after 78 officers were used in the operation to remove placards from the anti-war demonstrator Brian Haw, an evangelical Christian, who has been camped outside parliament for 1,819 days.
The early-morning raid on Tuesday cost £7,200 of public money. Its aim was to dismantle a wall of banners and flags on Parliament Square, outside the House of Commons, after a court overturned an earlier appeal by Mr Haw.
Members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, which oversees the Met, have strongly criticised the scale and style of the action.
According to The Independent newspaper, one member, Damien Hockney, said it gave the impression that Britain was “suppressing dissent by people opposed to the Iraq war”. Another said it had brought the force into “disrepute”.
The raid followed a notice issued under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act requiring Mr Haw, who began his protest in 2001, to limit it to 10 feet of pavement.
The House of Commons was persuaded by the government to change the law especially to make Mr Hawís protest illegal, so irritated were PM Tony Blair and other supporters of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The same law has been used to suppress other demonstrations ñ including most recently one concerned with the treatment of Palestinians.
Limited access rights can be granted at 24 hours notice, but protestors say that when urgent issues arise this is insufficient ñ and militates against the spirit of what claims to be the ëmother of parliamentsí.
Lord Tope, a Liberal Democrat and member of the police authority, said: “Some may find Brian Haw and his activities irritating, but being an irritant is a fundamental part of our democracy. It brings the Met into a bit of disrepute – 78 police officers arriving in the middle of the night to clear placards and chase mice. I really think it was huge overkill.”
Mr Haw is due to appear at Bow Street magistrates’ court next Tuesday, charged with breaching his conditions to demonstrate in the square.
Parliamentary Early Day Motion number 2126 has been tabled supporting the campaignerís right to protest.
It reads: ì[T]his House notes the verdict of Monday 9 May [2006] in the case of Brian Haw, peace protestor in Parliament Square for over four and a half years, which overturned the original High Court ruling allowing him to continue his peace vigil; notes with concern that Mr Haw may now be forced to end his protest should the Police Commissioner fail to grant him permission to remain; further notes that Mr Haw’s silent protest causes no hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament, nor does it create a public disorder; further notes that this House owes Mr Haw a debt of gratitude for his long-term active engagement in democracy; believes that Mr Haw should be allowed to remain in Parliament Square; and calls upon the Government to nurture engagement by the public with politicians and to support the democratic right of all to protest where they can be seen by Hon. Members.î
Brian Hawís campaign website can be found here.
[Also on Ekklesia: Police seize Christian’s anti-war placards 23/05/06; Condoleezza Rice faces anti-war protests at Christian college 25/05/06; Cindy Sheehan meets Christian protestor Brian Haw; Christian anti-war protester wins in High Court; Christian anti-war protester loses battle to continue vigil; London protest ban demo sparked by Christian campaigner; Peace camp to be set up opposite Parliament]