A posting from the Defend Peaceful Protest group…

Two months have passed since the G20 and the brutal police operation against protesters in the City of London. Yesterday the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) met for the second time since the operation to question Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson. At the first meeting the Met showed no signs of having taken on board the serious and widespread criticism of their actions and at times actively mis-represented what had taken place in an attempt to spin themselves out of trouble. So it was with a fair deal of scepticism that myself and Anna Bragga of Defend Peaceful Protest went down to City Hall to put our questions to the Met once again. This time we asked:

1. Why did the police forcibly advance at the South end of the Climate Camp at around 7pm without warning if it was simply a matter of needing a containment to “prevent disorderly protestors from the Bank of England from joining” and, in particular, why did a line of officers use force to advance on the right hand side when there was access from Great Helens.

2. Given the evidence of Police ID concealment or accidental obscurement at the G20 and subsequent demonstrations, will the Police Uniform review look into placing numbers on the back and front of uniforms and protective gear rather than the shoulder so that Police ID on future demonstrations is more clearly identifiable and less easily removed?

3. Given the evidence submitted to MPA members prior to this meeting about inconsistencies in police statements, how are we as members of the public, and the MPA members, to feel confident in the facts as presented in Metropolitan Police Briefings thus far?

4. Defend Peaceful Protest are aware of five separate bodies investigating aspects of the G20 protests: The Home Affairs Select Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the IPCC, Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police Authority itself. What effort is being made to ensure that all bodies are working together to collect evidence from protestors in order to make an effective inquiry into protesting policing at the G20 possible?

These questions raise serious ethical and constitutional concerns and require straightforward answers from the police without spin if the lessons of the G20 are to be learnt and public faith in protest policing repaired. Unfortunately, it seems both the MPA chief executive and the Met have no interest in answering inconvenient questions until Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary reports back on their enquiry next month.  And the answer to question four suggests there has been no attempt to co-ordinate by the FIVE separate bodies investigating aspects of the G20 – hardly joined up government!  A multitude of investigations with overlapping remits which are not sharing evidence is hardly conducive to the thorough and systematic investigation we need to ensure the mistakes committed on April 1^st aren’t repeated.

One small victory following the first meeting was the formation of a new civil liberties panel for the MPA.  This will look specifically at aspects of policing which might infringe upon the rights of Londoners and those that protest within the city.

Although the setting up of this panel is good news since up until now no body has existed to look at the civil liberties impact of policing in London, Defend Peaceful Protest still have significant concerns as to what strength the panel will have in actually effecting change. This concern was echoed by Labour Assembly Member Joanne McCartney, Lib Dem Dee Doocey and Jenny Jones of the Greens who also questioned whether the panel would be adequately resourced to take on a proper investigation into the G20 policing which would be a huge job.

So it looks very likely the enquiry by the MPA is not going to provide proper answers for many protesters. We’ll wait and see for the report back from HMIC at the next meeting, but in all probability this will gloss over protesters’ concerns and conclude that police tactics, including the practice of aggressively kettling peaceful protesters, were justified.

If this is the way government holds the police to account it might explain the reason a number of protest groups and activists who were present at the G20 have not even engaged with the MPA or other enquiries: they’ve simply given up on what is a laborious and often fruitless process. It’s time we saw an end to the impunity that has built up amongst the police which permits them to get away with serious and persistent violations of civil liberties that damage the health of our democracy. In the meantime we’ll do our best to try and ensure these investigations at the very least hear the concerns protesters have with the current state of policing.

However, any attempts to make these statements into a reality will be scuppered by advancement in the US missile defence system that is planned for instalment in Europe. The missiles are currently planned to be placed in a position that clearly threatens Russia. It does not take a genius to work out that Russia will be loathe to reduce its nuclear stockpile in the face of a missile defence system being installed close to its borders.

So, in order to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament, pressure must be put on all parties involved -which includes the UK as part of NATO- to abandon the US missile defence project. For more information on the Missile defence project read CND’s page here: http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/campaigns/missile-defence/no-to-us-missile-defence.html

For any readers who are really keen to be involved there is a conference about the missile defence system in London on the 31^st of Jan. All you need to do is email campaigns@cnduk.org or phone 0207 700 2393 to confirm that you want to attend. For those who want to do something that takes a little less time, call on your MP’s to sign EDM 366. The early day motion (EDM) that CND is urging people to ask their MP’s to sign recognises Obama’s support for Nuclear disarmament initiatives and calls on the Government to scrutinise US missile defence deployment plans in the UK and their implications for UK and European security as a whole. You can help CND by clicking on the link below and completing an action that will only take one minute. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/get-involved/actions/lobby-your-mp-to-sign-edm-366.html

The occupation of Palestinian land has been carried out alongside border controls, harassment, military raids, curfews, house demolitions, other collective punishments like cessation of power or water and economic blockades that have forced a nation of people into destitution on a small section of their own land. The situation of the Palestinian people has been likened to a refugee camp by commentators across the world as they are denied self determination and their own state.

As the current conflict seems to be showing signs of winding down the international solidarity that has built up for the Palestinian cause needs to be applied towards the state of Israel to demand that they stop occupying the Palestinian lands, to lift the economic blockade, and to open the borders –at the very least- so the Palestinians can start to rebuild what infrastructure they had been able to build up in the face of occupation and forced destitution.

The comments made by Harry are disgraceful. When coupled with his previous outing in Nazi SS gear it appears to be part of a pattern. The challenge to racism needs to be issued again and again, and action will be taken. Many anti racist groups are planning events for Holocaust Memorial Day to reiterate the time-worn but ever crucial message ‘never again’.

However, there are other issues that these remarks raise. They highlight the injustices of privilege and the monarchy. If he were an elected public official he would be suspended or sacked for calling people ‘rag heads’ and worse. He has not been reprimanded, only issuing a hollow apology for remarks that are clearly not a one off slip of the tongue. We should be able to elect and hold to account our public officials. If the Royals are not public officials why are they funded with millions of pounds of tax payer’s money? If they are why are they not accountable and this this includes democratically? The group ‘Republic’ who campaign for an elected head of state have responded in force on their blog, which can be accessed here if you wish to view some discussion on the issue. http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/index.php

There is an article in the Guardian discussing what opponents of capitalism are saying (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/17/recession.labour), but on the whole the press continue to cover brokers with their heads in their hands, because their jobs are just so stressful and it’s obviously these people that will be hit the hardest? One wonders when the focus will turn to the vulnerable poor around the world on the verge of starvation or struggling to educate their children. When will the focus in this country turn to the elderly woman who can’t heat her home this winter or the family that can’t feed its children? It’s lamentable that the media don’t choose to record the wealth of anti-capitalist thinking but if the left wants its ideas to enter the public conscience it has to make itself heard. It will be interesting to see if any major change in perspective comes about from the effects and recognition of this continuing financial crisis.

It occurs to me through discussions with those around me that many people don’t see what is wrong with these kind of operations or even care if they understand some possible implications. With messages from Senior Police officials to officers urging that they ‘fully exploit’ these resources, a dangerous proliferation of already worrying amounts of surveillance coupled with missuse of the information could have dire consequences. Arguments for holding data for long periods and allowing access to large amounts of personnel seem to be along the lines that ‘the information might be useful some day’. This is not enough of a justification, authorities need to have reasons for their actions. Rights to privacy set out in International law such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the ICCPR can only be violated in cases of national security. People driving to work or going about their daily business are not national security issues of this magnitude.

Measures like these need to be questioned by citizens when the internal government mechanisms aren’t asking the questions sufficiently. More and more of our freedoms are being eroded in the UK, a country with the most security cameras per population in the world. We need more discussion and debate concerning our civil liberties. Liberties that our forebears fought and struggled for.

Whilst working at the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) this summer I developed a concept paper for a ‘Justice Centres’ project funded by the Ford Foundation. This project aims to improve access to justice for Ghanaian citizens, particularly indigent arrested persons.

Access to Justice is guaranteed in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. Article 14(2) of the Constitution provides that a person who is arrested, restricted and detained shall be informed immediately; in a language that he understands, of the reason for his arrest, of his right to a lawyer of his choice and an interpreter at state expense. Additionally, such person is entitled to be taken to court within 48 hours after his/her arrest.

Regrettably this is not the case for many Ghanaian citizens. Among many of the concerning statistics I waded through assessing the rational for these centres in Ghana were those concerning the significant number of people who experience detention without charge for periods of over 48 hours. Of 18,866 admissions, 10,709 (57 percent) were on remand. In June 2006 a Parliamentary team visited the Nsawam prison, where the Deputy Director General stated that some prisoners had been on remand for more than five years! The centres will operate by training lawyers and law students to provide assistance to indigent arrested persons. The pre-trial lawyers’ duties will include applying for bail for suspects, assisting with writing of statements, general legal advice and providing initial court representation. Hopefully with the implementation of this project we should see improvements in Ghana’s Justice system.

Working on this project called to mind the struggle by civil liberties groups resisting the UK governments attempt to restrict its citizens access to justice. It is concerning that a developing country sees the detention without charge for periods of over 48 hours as something which needs addressing, whereas under current anti-terror laws in the UK you can be locked up and repeatedly questioned by police for up to 28 days without being charged. The police do not even have to inform you why you are there. This 28 day limit is seven times the limit for someone suspected of murder. As we face these extending limits and ever increasing surveillance shouldn’t we be doing more to ensure our access to justice is maintained?