CAMPAIGNERS have said they are concerned new legislation will destroy the public's right to protest - but Worcester's MP has rejected those claims.
Worcester MP Robin Walker has rubbished what he called “misleading” claims about proposed changes to the law saying the bill aimed to deal with groups that went “beyond” peaceful protest.
Critics of the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill say it would put unnecessary restrictions on the right to protest and turn the country into a police state.
People opposed to the bill have also said that picking and choosing which groups to target is not democratic.
Mr Walker said: “This bill is an incredibly important piece of legislation that toughens sentencing for serious offenders.
"I think there is a lot of misleading commentary that freedom to protest will be affected, which is a right that I am in full support of.
"What it is about however is dealing with those people that go beyond peaceful protests as we have seen from groups like Extinction Rebellion.
"Protest should not be at the expense of people being able to go about their business. The bill also features lots of funding to aid our police force which is something I am also in full favour of."
Mr Walker voted in favour of the legislation on the last three readings.
Green city councillor Neil Laurenson said it was “shameful” for the city’s MP to support the bill.
"It is shameful that our own MP supports this attempt to turn our country from a democracy into a police state,” he said.
"Anyone who cares about their free speech should be opposed to this bill."
Conservative Worcester City Councillor for Battenhall, Louise Griffiths, took to Twitter to share her views on the bill.
The right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy. Picking and choosing which groups you’ll allow that from isn’t democratic and given we’re in a #ClimateEmergency I think @ExtinctionR and @InsulateLove are very much in the right here #killthebill #PoliceBill https://t.co/9CFntg3wSE
— Louise Griffiths (@LA_Griffiths) January 18, 2022
The majority of concerns relate to clause 78, which refers to intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance.
According to the clause, an offence will be caused if a person obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large, and the person intends that their act or omission will have a consequence or is reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.
The organiser of the Reclaim The Night and member of the Women's Equality party, Leisa Taylor, said: "I believe that protecting our rights to protest is of paramount importance."
"When we were organising the Reclaim the Night march, we were very cautious to call it a protest at the time with all of the talk surrounding the bill.
"From a feminist point of view, it is disturbing that the bill also mentions the destruction of a statue can lead to a maximum jail sentence for up to ten years, and yet domestic abuse has a maximum charge of five years."
The House of Lords met on Monday, January 17 to discuss the new amendments to the bill, after peers gutted the legislation with a series of defeats for the Government.
A majority of members voted against a variety of clauses that impede on protesting rights.
The bill is likely to go back and forth between the House of Commons and the House of Lords until a conclusion is met.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel