The police aren’t dealing with our right to protest ‘appropriately’ at all

The Met failed to balance a manageable Covid risk against the crucial right for women to express pain and solidarity after Sarah Everard’s death

‘’Appropriate’ essentially means that restriction of the right is ‘proportionate’ to a legitimate aim pursued – but at the vigil for Sarah Everard, this really wasn’t done carefully or proportionately’ (Victoria Jones/PA)

We’ve all been shocked by footage of the pushy policing of a peaceful vigil for women to show solidarity in the wake of Sarah Everard’s death. So, an independent government review’s finding that the Met “acted appropriately” at the event on Clapham Common two weeks ago is no less startling.

Though it has been agreed that officers lacked communication with each other on the night, the response to the protests was “measured”, the report goes. But action, while it may be legally sanctioned, is not always apt.

Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, providing for freedom of assembly and association, is encoded in UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a qualified right, which means the state is allowed to interfere in it to a certain degree.

“Appropriate” essentially means that restriction of the right is “proportionate” to a legitimate aim pursued. From a human rights high horse, it may seem logical that the state must occasionally intervene to restrict such a wide-ranging right. But at the vigil, this really wasn’t done carefully or proportionately.

The police failed to balance a manageable Covid risk against the crucial right for women to express pain and solidarity towards Sarah Everard’s death.

Read more:

• Let’s take a closer look at what Allegra Stratton describes as Boris Johnson’s ‘honesty and integrity’
• As a Black mother-to-be, I used my husband’s whiteness to keep me safe
• This is supposed to be the trial of Derek Chauvin, not the trial of George Floyd
• Rape culture at private schools isn’t about to change – parents are paying for this sense of entitlement

This is demonstrated not least by the “kill the bill” protests in Bristol and elsewhere in the country, in which it is not clear who – the police or the protesters – is truly instigating violence.

Protesters are railing against the upcoming Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which, among other things, will enable police chiefs to place more restrictions on static protests; even for demonstrations by just one person.

This comes at a sorry time, given the questionable policing of Sarah Everard’s vigil. As Labour has pointed out, with the new legislation in place, the penalty for pulling down a statue (10 years) would be higher than the starting prison sentence for rape (five years). Overall, confidence in the police is low, and impending legislation indicates the government’s skewed priorities.

As of yesterday, the UK is currently rearing its sleepy head after the slumber of lockdown restrictions. This obviously poses new challenges for the police, and medical safety is key. But, notwithstanding the pandemic, people must be able to show solidarity at times when our safety and basic rights are challenged. At the vigil on Clapham Common, this could have been managed with a more tolerant attitude.

The Police Bill serves as an untimely reminder that marginalised groups still do not have the right to be heard. The disproportionate policing of protests against, of all things, restriction of the right to protest, thus appears an ever-spiralling straitjacket on our crucial, Europe-backed right to freedom of expression.

This is even more concerning when marginalised groups are being disproportionately policed in protest. At least police brutality at the vigil at Clapham Common has received the widespread media outrage it merits. But last summer raised this in the context of systemic racism too, with accusations of the police increasingly exercising their stop and search powers in areas with large Bame populations during Black Lives Matter protests. The right to protest is especially important for disadvantaged groups – not only women, who have suffered in this particular instance. It is these groups that the Police Bill will set back.

Undoubtedly, there is a balancing act to be done here – the government, and the police, must attempt to weigh up concerns about safe protest against the speaking rights of the marginalised. But the right to protest no longer holds much meaning at all if countering it by violence is deemed an “appropriate” response.

With restrictions loosening, our constitution should be able to find space for safe protest. The fact that the police won’t acknowledge this doesn’t bode well for a society in which marginalised people need to be able to speak.