At long last sanity has prevailed
It was bound to happen. BBC News report today - Peace activist Brian Haw has been instructed to end his five-year vigil outside Parliament as the government has won an appeal against an earlier legal ruling.
Last July, Mr Haw, 56, from Worcestershire, won a High Court action against a new law (The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 states anyone wanting to demonstrate in a 1km zone around Parliament Square must have permission from the police when the demonstration starts) threatening his round-the-clock protest. But three Court of Appeal judges have now overturned that decision.
One has to admire Brian for keeping up his long protest. His name will go down in the history books - he even has a website Parliament Square.
The issue is not his protest but the location and the condition of the area after all these years. He often uses a loud-hailer to shout views at MPs and passers-by. With his placard-strewn campsite, the place is an eyesore and in the hot weather quite pongy. At times the noise is quite deafening. Have to admit, I always walk on the opposite side of the road when going past the area. I feel so embarrassed by the image this ugly looking protest portrays to foreign visitors in front of the British Parliament.
Some people will say the ruling is a "blow to free speech" - in some ways I agree. If his vigil was in any other location he would have my full support but not in front of the seat of government.
Dispite the ruling can't quite see Brian leaving voluntarily so we can expect this saga to play out for some time yet.
Additional comment: - Have noticed that Peter Black AM has picked up on this story with a different opinion - Court backs Government shock
posted by Suz @ 7:40 PM
11 Comments:
At May 09, 2006 8:57 PM,
Bob said…
I agree this man should go but by whatever means Blair should be hounded long into old age for his grovelling role in this Iraq business and following those ludicrous imbeciles from across the pond interfering with affairs and lives they have no business with.
At May 09, 2006 11:07 PM,
Paul Leake said…
It's precisely because it's the seat of power that the right to protest in central London shouldn't be restricted (except where genuinely necessary for safety / security). Out-of-touch governments / political systems will always try to keep themselves seperated from angry ordinary people.
If protesters are engaging in anti-social behaviour, that a seperate issue and something that should be dealt with seperately.
Being on the wrong end of free expression is uncomfortable and often embarrassing, but if the medium is part of the message (eg reciting names of the dead outside Downing Street) then you can't move the protest elsewhere without stifling the free expression.
At May 10, 2006 12:26 PM,
Tristan said…
Personally I dislike his protest, and disagree with much of what he says.
However, the action taken by the government to remove him is draconian. It removes the right to freely protest.
It puts giving permission for protest into the hands of an arbitrary, unelected official.
So I have to disagree with this being sanity prevailing, its rather the state prevailing over the individual and coercion prevailing over freedom.
At May 10, 2006 2:55 PM,
Gavin Whenman said…
Surely Brian Haw shouldn't pay for Parliament's ineptitude in drafting the legislation? The Act doesn't appear to apply to continuing acts and there must be a challenge to it possible under Human Rights law?
At May 12, 2006 1:15 AM,
Ted said…
To protest in front of Parliament is one thing but to make it into a round the clock filthy camp is something else.
Ok the law may be considered as taking away freedom of speech but it is the law and should be respected.
At May 12, 2006 7:47 PM,
Chris Black said…
Determined protestor with nothing better to do + Politicians who make bad decisions = a bad law.
Sorry to disagree but power has prevailed, not sanity!
At May 14, 2006 2:42 PM,
Al and Lou said…
I cant think of a better place to protest, my own protest behind the disused quarry buildings on knock pike received very little puplic.
At May 14, 2006 2:46 PM,
MatGB said…
Have to agree with the nay-sayers Suzanne, it might be a bit of a mess, but preventing people from protesting in the heart of the capitol is horribly illiberal, very surprised to see you supporting it.
Same legislation got Maya evans; she was ringing a bell of remembrance by the Cenotaph, and she's arrested under powers from the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act? No.
At May 15, 2006 12:24 PM,
Oscar Wildebeest said…
Intiguing. It seems the anti-Haw comments centre on his standards of hygiene and the noise level generated (personally, I can't think of many places in London which are noisier than Parliament Square, but that's down to traffic and I don't see you lot calling for cars and buses - which are also noisy and smelly - to be banned).
It does sound as if you think Haw is just a little bit indecent, much like a Telegraph reader might complain about "those dreadful scruffy poor people standing at the bus stop on the high road".
Surely your opinion of Haw's protest should be based on assessment of his message and not on aesthetics?
At May 27, 2006 8:26 PM,
Flip said…
Seems Louise over at My Rambling Thoughts her posting:
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Brian Haw - I'm torn on this subject. Says it all .. She rounds off with "But back to Brian Haw, his banners have been removed and they are still trying to get rid of him. And despite everything I said above, I'm really pleased. He is nothing more than a blot on the bloody landscape and a damn nuisance. I agree with most of his sentiments but really, one man with his shabby little tent and scraggy 40foot of banners isn't a protest, it's littering and vagrancy. Five years? Bugger off and get a job mate".
At June 04, 2006 12:04 AM,
Philip T said…
Hi Susanne
Sorry but I don't agree with you about Brian Haw.
Surely the liberal thing is to support freedom to expression?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home