By Luke Adams

Since 2019 there’s been an increase in the amount of environmental protest movements in the UK, such as Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Just Stop Oil (JSO). They are incredibly recent groups, with JSO forming in 2022 and XR in 2018. In April and October 2019, XR occupied roads and bridges in central London for two weeks, leading to thousands of arrests, and members of JSO have blocked motorways, invaded sports pitches, and glued themselves to paintings in museums. All with the messages related to demands around addressing the climate crisis.  These actions generated many news stories and debates and led to the government introducing new legislation that aimed to reduce these groups’ ability and freedom to protest. Indeed, the government has continually dismissed the protest group's specific demands that go beyond the government’s current green plans and criticised their protest tactics. These groups are deliberately pushing the boundaries of protest and protesters often want to get arrested to bring attention to their cause. These new laws reduce the amount of tolerated disruption of protest, making it more likely that protesters are breaking the law.  It also enables the state to imprison protesters, increase stop and search powers and ban people from attending future protests. It even places new restrictions on Parliament Square. You can read Liberty’s guide here to gain a better picture of the new laws. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated, “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 organising or taking part in peaceful protests” (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023).

The right to voice political concerns to the government, organisations and the general public has long been more than just through simple voting alone, with acts such as demonstrations, protests and strikes. The new laws, such as the Public Order Bill 2023 and the Police, Crime and Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, restrict protest activities in a way that may undermine democratic principles, such as free speech and free association. Peaceful protests may be annoying to some, but they are essential to the functioning of democracy and for the public to develop opinions on key issues. Protest plays an important function in influencing elected politicians. It acts as a form of correction for when electoral politics doesn’t represent the views or act on the wishes of a group of people.  This aspect of protest and political voice is essential when, under the single member plurality system of elections, in the 2019 UK general election, 55.3% of the voters in did not vote for the government party (of course, this does not mean that everyone in the 55.3% approves of JSOs and XRs actions or demands).

A poll in 2022 found that 6 in 10 people did not think the government was doing enough to tackle the Climate Crisis. This poll shows that clearly, people’s wishes of their elected representatives are not being met on green issues. The climate movement is acting as an extra force to bring attention to the lack of action on climate and ecological issues and to pressure government and officials. It’s also been reported that disruptive protest does not have a backfire effect, in that people do not get turned off by the protester's demands, even if the protest tactic is unpopular. However, this doesn’t mean that protests should be limitless. Protests that target vulnerable people, such as children or women getting healthcare, should be protected from intimidating protests. While protests that target government or have an economic impact, such as disruptive road protests, while annoying to some, may be considered to be a legitimate means of protest.

Some have argued that JSO and XR have blocked ambulances or that traffic caused them to miss medical appointments. When JSO protesters blocked the Dartford crossing by climbing the bridge in 2022, it was reported by the media that they blocked paramedics from getting to a scene of a fatal crash. However, a freedom of information request to the ambulances service shows that it did not cause them any delays to attending the incident. XR also have a blue light policy, which means they let though emergency vehicles. Whilst increased traffic could cause extra delays to people going to get medical treatment, there is also going to be traffic issues given on any day, from the King’s coronation and other events to road works. If protest groups are not deliberately blocking medical centres and let though blue lights, then any traffic disruption caused, while annoying, could be considered legitimate.

These new laws are already affecting people’s rights to protest. The policing of the King’s coronation highlights how these new laws are used to silence and arrest protesters. The organisers of the anti-monarchy group Republic were detained along with their placards for having straps to secure the placards, despite having liaised with the police beforehand, as the police suspected it could be a ‘lock on device’ which makes protesters harder to remove. Their charges were dropped after police noticed the straps were not for locking on. Other groups were also subject to arrests at the coronation, such as JSO supporters being arrested for simply having T-Shirts that said: “Just Stop Oil”.  This affected the protester's rights to free speech. And it’s not only protesters being affected, a journalist filming them was also arrested, along with a woman who was just a bystander.  

While it will be impossible to tell how many people will be put off from attending protests with the new laws, it surely would have reduced the number of protesters at the coronation. It also reduces their effectiveness, with less equipment, such as placards. Shutting down protests at the coronation or scaring people off protesting could be considered as illegal from a human rights perspective under articles 10 and 11 of the human rights act and runs against the ideals of democracy. Protests have raised attention to many important societal issues, such as the Suffragettes’ Movement, which helped gain women the vote. As well as serving the important democratic function of helping highlight public opinion.

While there is undoubtedly worry about the new bills from activists, there is also hope for new avenues of protest for movements. The more repressive the state, the more public backlash and media attention it could get. The anti-monarchy protesters getting arrested for having simple placards may have got more press attention from the outrage over their arrests.  Also, as the bar of criminality is set lower and the punishments much higher, including prison, activists may be drawn to even more radical or disruptive forms of protest if even the less disruptive actions can now land you with severe consequences.  This could even bring protest groups more attention to their issues, something that most groups want. Regardless, the new laws still have a negative impact on protesters' rights to free speech, freedom of assembly and association. These are important for a democracy to function, especially when protest helps set the agenda on issues that elected politicians may not want to deal with.

About the author:

Luke Adams has just finished a History and Politics degree with The Open University and is planning further study for a master’s degree. He currently works for an environmental group and volunteers at a local community centre.