close
Friday March 29, 2024

Western countries have rules, regulations for protest rallies

By Sabir Shah
October 21, 2016

In UK organiser gives police notice telling date, time of procession, proposed route and his name and address; before march, police can impose conditions that relate to specific route, number of people allowed to attend march, duration of march, types of banners which will be used, even restrict entry to a public place; Australia, Netherlands, Canada, Malaysia, United States, Singapore, New Zealand, Thailand others have set up dedicated Speakers’ Corners for free speech; an overview of global laws on public gatherings, protests

LAHORE: As the PTI braces up to lock down Islamabad on November 2, some six months after it had held its Founding Day rally on April 24 in the capital, the PML-N government is surely in a fix whether to allow Imran Khan to go ahead with his plans or to launch a pre-emptive crackdown on his loyalists.

While rallies and protests have shattered the tranquillity of Islamabad during the last few years, public gatherings organised by political entities, religious parties, teachers, doctors, farmers, nurses and disabled citizens have also added to the sufferings of the citizens of Lahore in recent times.

Brief chronology of recent protests and rallies in Lahore:

What to talk of the political or religious parties in opposition, the ruling PML-N regime has itself been holding rallies while in power.

For example, on August 25, 2014, a PML-N rally led by Hamza Shahbaz had blocked the historic Charing Cross of Lahore in response to the sit-ins staged in Islamabad by the supporters of Messrs Imran Khan and Dr Tahirul Qadri, who were asking Premier Nawaz Sharif to relinquish charge after the alleged May 2013 electoral irregularities. 

The Punjab chief minister’s son had then maintained that the Islamabad sit-ins had caused a loss of Rs700 billion to the national coffers in just 11 days.

To add to the terrible traffic muddles in the city of Lahore, Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s JUI-F had also sent a small procession of its workers to express solidarity with Nawaz.The same day, workers of PTI had blocked traffic on Gulberg’s Main Boulevard by holding a sit-in at the Liberty Roundabout, thereby compounding the miseries of the Lahoriites.

It is imperative to note that before departing for Islamabad on August 14, 2014, Imran had also addressed his workers at the Charing Cross.Archives reveals that on January 17, 2015, the citizens of Lahore – irrespective of their political affiliations – had come out of their houses to show solidarity with the martyred children of December 16, 2014 Army Public School, Peshawar, attack.

A large number of citizens including children, students, women, trade unions, lawyers, journalists, academicians, artists, doctors, elderly people and political workers had gathered at the Charing Cross, in front of the Punjab Assembly building, to remember the children and their teachers who had lost lives in the Peshawar attack.

A large number of family members of the November 2014 Wagah border incident, where more than 60 people were killed, had also participated in this solidarity rally.

Besides the protest, candlelit vigils were organised by civil society, human rights organisations and students.

Different wings of major political parties, including PML-N, PPP, PTI, APML and PML-Q, were present in the rally and had held a candlelit vigil at Lahore’s Charing Cross.

And then in April 2016, the Jamaat-e-Islami had also staged a sit-in under the leadership of its chief Siraj-ul-Haq at the Charing Cross, where a grand statue of Queen Victoria had once stood.

The Indo-Pak Subcontinent has been a fertile ground for protest movements since 1920 at least:In 1920, the Non-Cooperation Movement led by Gandhi was a significant phase of the Indian independence movement from the British rule.

The movement was initiated by Gandhi after the April 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, where 379 innocent Indians were shot dead on the orders of Brig Gen Edward Dyer.

In March 1930, Mahatma Gandhi had again led a 24-day Salt March (also called Dandi Satyagraha) as direct action campaign against the British salt monopoly.

This march had gained worldwide attention and gave an impetus to the independence movement, besides having led to the start of a nationwide Civil Disobedience Movement after the British officials had introduced taxation on salt production.

The local populace used to produce salt from the seawater in the coastal village of Dandi, but the British deemed their sea-salt reclamation activities illegal, and had then repeatedly used force to stop it.

Gandhi had also deployed this mode of protest during his earlier struggles in South Africa for the rights of the Indians.

However, Gandhi was arrested on the midnight of 4-5 May 1930, but not before he had drawn worldwide attention to the Indian independence movement through extensive newspaper and newsreel coverage. Over 80,000 Indians were also jailed as a result of the 1930 Salt March.

The 1930 ‘Satyagraha’, loosely translated as “insistence on truth,” began with just 78 people who intended to walk 390-km from Ahmedabad to the coastal village of Dandi in Gujarat.

Global laws on public protest gatherings:

Research conducted by the Jang Group and Geo TV Network shows that although the right to freedom of assembly is guaranteed in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and appears in almost all democratic constitutions, many countries around the world are rolling back traditional rights and revoking freedom of assembly.

India: The Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 empowers a magistrate to prohibit an assembly of more than 10 people in an area.

According to sections 141-149 of the Indian Penal Code, the maximum punishment for engaging in rioting is rigorous imprisonment for three years and/or fine. Every member of an unlawful assembly can be held responsible for a crime committed by the group. Obstructing an officer trying to disperse an unlawful assembly may attract further punishment.

The section was used for the first time in 1861 by the ruling British Empire, and had thereafter, became an important tool to stop all the nationalist protests during the Independence Movement. However, its use in independent India remains controversial as little has changed.

The issue was further highlighted following the protests in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gang rape. A special executive magistrate had imposed prohibitory orders for up to six months around the capital’s popular public protest location of India Gate in December 2012.

In January 2013, the Delhi High Court had issued a notice to the capital’s police in this context and had found the special executive magistrate’s orders contrary to the fundamental rights of citizens.

Quite recently in February 2016, Section 144 was imposed in Haryana after the local Jaat community had turned violent during its protests against India’s caste quota system.

(References: The Economic Times, the Hindu and the Indian Express)

United Kingdom: The UK Public Order Act 1986 makes a distinction between processions and assemblies. A procession is said to be defined as people moving together along a route whereby a static protest is termed an assembly.

Processions in the UK are heavily regulated by legislation though. The organiser of the procession will be required to inform the police concerning the protest march. Specifically, notice should be given to the police if the march is intended to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views of any group, publicise a cause or campaign or mark or commemorate an event. Notice is not required if the march is purely spontaneous or if it is for a funeral procession.

The notice mentions the date and time of the procession, the proposed route and the name and address of the organiser, etc. It should be delivered to a police station in the area either by hand or by post and must be six days in advance effectively meaning a week’s notice should be given.

The date, starting time or route of the march should not differ from that given on the notice furnished by organiser. There is no guarantee that once notified to the police that a march will go ahead.

In advance of the march, the police can impose conditions that relate to the specific route, the number of people allowed to attend the march, the duration of the march, the types of banners which will be able to be used, an even restrict entry to a public place.

During the march, the most senior police officer present can impose similar kinds of conditions but without the need to do so in writing. This can only be done however, if the senior officer reasonably believes that the march may result in a serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.

Failure to adhere to any of the conditions imposed on a march – whether they be imposed prior to or during the march – constitute a criminal offence. There will be different sanctions imposed on both the organiser and the participants of the march in case of law breach.

Under the UK Public Order Act, the police are given powers to ban all or a class of processions or marches in a specified area for up for three months.

In the case of static demonstrations, there is no need to inform the police prior to the demonstration or assembly taking place.

An assembly of people can be constituted by more than one person but must be taking place in a public place. The definition of public place can constitute a highway or a pavement and any other place where members of the general public have access.

Under the UK Public Order Act, the police are provided with specific powers to control assemblies. They are not, however, provided with a power to ban assemblies as is the case with processions or marches.

The UK police can impose conditions on an assembly in relation to the following: location of the assembly, the maximum number of people who are able to participate in the assembly and the maximum length of duration of the assembly.

It goes without saying that under the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 44 enables the Police Chief Constable to designate a specific area whereby individuals, vehicles, drivers, passengers, pedestrians and others can be searched for articles which may be used in connection with terrorism.

Since the enactment of the act, the whole of greater London has been designated as such as specific area under Section 44.

Under the Terrorism Act, there are no grounds to be proven that there was a suspicion that any of these offending articles would be found.

Failure to stop to be searched or obstructing the police in the proper operation of their duties was earlier declared a criminal offence under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, but the Section 44 searches have now been ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. The power to use them against individuals has also been removed by the British Home Secretary.

It is imperative to note that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police are able to arrest individuals where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a breach of the peace is in fact taking place or is imminent.

An anti-social behaviour order can be imposed on an individual if he or she has behaved in a manner that has caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Under an ant-social behaviour order, the court can impose conditions relating to an individual partaking in certain activities or entering certain areas.

The British police also have the right to issue dispersal orders under Section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which may be a more legitimate tool to combat protesting. Contravening an anti-social behaviour order or a dispersal order is a criminal offence.

The October 2011 to June 2012 ‘Occupy London’ protests:

A campaign was launched on Facebook for protests to take place at the London Stock Exchange on October 15 in solidarity with the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protests in New York and with multiple other protests planned worldwide for that day.

The London Stock Exchange in Paternoster Square was the initial target for the protesters on October 15. They were protesting for social justice and real democracy in England. However, the police had blocked access to the square, enforcing a High Court injunction against public access.

During the afternoon of October 15, 2011, Julian Assange (founder of Wikileaks) gave an impromptu speech to the protesters on the topic of anonymity after he was challenged by police for wearing a mask as he walked to the protest.

On January 18, 2012, the court had granted an injunction against continuation of the protests, but the protesters remained in place pending an appeal.

The appeal was refused on February 22 and just past midnight on February 28, 2012, bailiffs supported by City of London police began to remove the tents of protestors.

Both developed and undeveloped nations take action on public gatherings:

It is imperative to note that during March 2007, the London police were given powers to seize trespassers at 16 sites ranging from the royal palaces to the official residences of politicians.

Trespassers on designated sites were on the risk being jailed for up to six months and fined up to £5,000. (Reference: The March 24, 2007 edition of the “Guardian”)

On March 26, 2015, the Spanish government had ended freedom of assembly. In the face of popular opposition (80 per cent of Spaniards opposed it), the upper house had passed the Citizens’ Security Law.

A May 4, 2015 report of Al-Jazeera Television had added: “Police will have the discretionary ability to hand out fines up to $650,000 to unauthorized demonstrators who protest near a transport hub or nuclear power plant. They will be allowed to issue fines of up to $30,000 for taking pictures of police during protest, failing to show police ID or just gathering in an unauthorized way near government buildings. The law doesn’t technically outlaw protest, but it’s hard to see what difference that makes in practice.”

The Al-Jazeera continued saying: “Last October (2014), a law was passed in Turkey allowing police to search demonstrators and their homes without warrants or even grounds for suspicion, allowing for a much looser definition of and harsher punishment for resisting arrest and making covering one’s face at a protest or shouting particular slogans crimes punishable by years in prison.”

According to Al-Jazeera, France had banned Palestine solidarity demonstrations and Australia had given powers to the police to bar protesters from appearing in public spaces for a year, even if they worked or lived there.

In Egypt, according to national newspapers like the Egypt Independent” and the Aswat Masriya, the November 2013 law required three days notification before protesting.