50 activists, Greenpeace USA chief, arrested in protest.
-
Washington, DC, United States — 50 activists, including Greenpeace USA Executive Director John Passacantando, were arrested in front of the US State Department building in Washington DC for participating in a global warming protest.
They were out in full force calling upon the US to sign the Kyoto protocol, and to protest President Bush's diversion of effort: a polluter's summit he called for representatives of the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa.
What's the goal of this meeting? To persuade other countries to undermine the United Nations negotiations and substitute real, binding measures with voluntary pledges.
-
So what is your point of this post?
There are also many peaceful protests where the protesters are not arrested. -
Yeah but why were they arrested ?Originally posted by wheelcamp:So what is your point of this post?
There are also many peaceful protests where the protesters are not arrested. -
Hongkong - 900 WTO protestors were arrested - why ?
"The arrests followed violent police dispersals using tear gas and water canons while protesters staged a peaceful sit-in on a road near the convention centre where the WTO Ministerial Conference was taking place.
APWLD condemns police brutality against people who are exercising their right to assemble and protest."
http://www.dontglobalisehunger.org/900protestors.php
Peaceful Protesters Arrested at the Port Of Tacoma 3-11-07 - why ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w9HrDJEN58 -
Originally posted by kramnave:
How about you post articles where
[b]Hongkong - 900 WTO protestors were arrested - why ?
"The arrests followed violent police dispersals using tear gas and water canons while protesters staged a peaceful sit-in on a road near the convention centre where the WTO Ministerial Conference was taking place.
APWLD condemns police brutality against people who are exercising their right to assemble and protest."
http://www.dontglobalisehunger.org/900protestors.php
Peaceful Protesters Arrested at the Port Of Tacoma 3-11-07 - why ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w9HrDJEN58
[/b]
peaceful protesters are not arrested. - why?
I'm sure there are successful peaceful protests that went unreported. Post articles on successful protests instead of just selecting unsuccessful protests. -
I'm sure most of us are not dumb and many propagate that countries which practices democracy have no problems with people assembling peacefully and protesting.
So why would it be a point of contention ? Its a well known fact. There is no need to further discuss why.
However, why are these protestors arrested then ? That is the topic. I'm not insinuating that other democratic countries behaves in the same manner as us. I'm just curious as to why beliefs about these countries can be breached, something that caught me by surprise as well. -
Static Demonstrations and Assemblies
Unlike public processions, there is normally no requirement to give prior notice of an assembly but, under the Public Order Act, the police do have specific powers to control assemblies. Two persons can constitute an ‘assembly’. A public place is any highway (including the pavement) and any other place to which the public or a section of the public can have access.
The senior police officer at the scene has the power to impose conditions but only if he or she reasonably believes that:
* The conditions are necessary to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or
* The purpose
of the person organising the assembly it is to intimidate others.
The only conditions may be imposed on a public assembly under POA are on:
* Location of the assembly,
* Maximum number of people participating in the assembly,
* Maximum duration of the assembly
Note also that although the police have power to impose conditions, there is no power to ban a public assembly altogether, Therefore if the conditions are so strict that they in effect prohibit the assembly from taking effect in any meaningful way (such as if the conditions restrict the protest to 5 people, in a side street away from the public and for a maximum of 5 minutes), it may be that they amount to a ban and are unlawful. An attempt by the police to impose excessively strict conditions may also be a breach of the protesters rights to assembly under Article 11 of the Convention.
Demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA) introduced a new set of criteria for demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. If you want to conduct a ‘demonstration’ in the ‘designated area’ must give written notice to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner stating the date and time when the demonstration is to be carried out, how it is to be carried out, and whether it is to be carried out by him/herself or not. The notice must, if reasonably practicable, be given not less than six clear days before the day on which the demonstration is to start, or if not reasonable practicable, as soon as it is, and in any event, not less than 24 hours before the time the demonstration is to start.
What is a ‘Demonstration’ is not defined but it is possible for one person to carry out a ‘demonstration’ on his or her own. In fact, a lone woman reading the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq has been held to constitute a ‘demonstration’. However, processions which require notification under section 11 of the POA (see Marches and Processions) are not covered by this provision. The designated area is a large area of around parliament that includes all of Whitehall, some parts of the Southbank, as well as Westminster and Parliament Square itself. Trafalgar Square is not included in the designated area.
The Commissioner must give authorisation to a demonstration if the required notice is given. However, he may impose conditions if these are necessary to prevent:
* Serious public disorder,
* Serious damage to property,
* Disruption to the life of the community,
* Risk to security or to health and safety,
* Hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament or to any person wishing to leave or enter Parliament.
So in the designated area the police have greater powers to impose conditions as, unlike for static assemblies elsewhere, there is no need there for to be a risk of serious disruption to the life of the community but merely a risk of disruption or of hindrance. Any demonstration will be likely to cause some level of disruption or hindrance. In addition the conditions that can be imposed are broader: in addition to number, location and duration, the conditions can related to size of banners and noise levels or any other such conditions that the Commissioner considers necessary. In addition, loudspeaker or loudhailers are banned within the designated area completely.
If a demonstration is carried out in the designated area without authorisation, both the organisers and the participants will be guilty of an offence. It is also an offence to knowingly fail to comply with a condition which imposed on the demonstrators, although there is a defence if the demonstrator can show that the failure to comply with the condition arose from circumstances beyond his or her control.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-of-peaceful-protest/static-demonstrations-rallies-and-assemblies/static-demonstrations-and-assemblies.shtml
I took the information from Liberty's Your Rights website, the online guide to human rights law in England and Wales.
Key points:
Demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament
The Commissioner must give authorisation to a demonstration if the required notice is given.
If a demonstration is carried out in the designated area without authorisation, both the organisers and the participants will be guilty of an offence. It is also an offence to knowingly fail to comply with a condition which imposed on the demonstrators, although there is a defence if the demonstrator can show that the failure to comply with the condition arose from circumstances beyond his or her control. -
Other key points:
* Location of the assembly,
* Maximum number of people participating in the assembly,
* Maximum duration of the assembly
Note also that although the police have power to impose conditions, there is no power to ban a public assembly altogether, Therefore if the conditions are so strict that they in effect prohibit the assembly from taking effect in any meaningful way (such as if the conditions restrict the protest to 5 people, in a side street away from the public and for a maximum of 5 minutes), it may be that they amount to a ban and are unlawful. An attempt by the police to impose excessively strict conditions may also be a breach of the protesters rights to assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. -
What's new.. America has become a police state ever since the unholy couple came to power.
-
I was just thinking, during the WTO meetings in Hongkong, protestors were arrested for protesting near the venue.
In Singapore during the IMF meetings, even with our strict laws, protestors managed to assemble and protest at the venue indoors.
Suppose the aim is to demonstrate peacefully and not bring the country into a standstill, which is better ?
and what is the purpose of a demonstration ? -
Suppose the aim is to demonstrate peacefully and not bring the country into a standstill, which is better?
Why demonstrate equal to bring country to standstill? -
They do not equate. I don't think i implied that.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Why demonstrate equal to bring country to standstill?