Silencing the Defenders - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

While there may be some degree of necessity for laws that restrict and forbid public meetings under
certain circumstances, the legislation is all too often used for collateral purposes to minimise visibility
for stances that run counter to the government’s own by quashing dissent and intimidating opposition.
Singapore’s Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 45 requires that public assemblies
of more than five people should obtain police permission. The tight nexus between the police and
government means that it is opposition rallies that find it difficult to get permission. When they protest
anyway, they are immediately arrested. In 2007, four members of the Singapore Democratic Party
protesting against the government’s links with Myanmar were arrested and charged with “illegal
assembly”. 46 More worryingly, in 2009, this already repressive law was replaced with the Public
Order Act under which permits are required for even a one-person protest or for any assembly
relating to a cause. 47 The ostensible purpose of the Act is to deal with the threat of terrorism in
connection with the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in November 2009.
In 2005, the UK Parliament passed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). The law
restricts the right to demonstrate within a one-kilometre zone of any point in Parliament Square,
requiring that those who wish to protest should first gain authorisation from the police who may in
turn place conditions on the form the assembly can take. The government claimed that its legitimate
aim was to protect the ability of parliament to operate unhindered and to maintain national security. 48
However, many critics contend that the law was in fact enacted with the intention of providing a
mechanism to enable the police to use their powers to regulate anti-war protests. These protests
were considered a contributory factor in reducing support for the governing Labour Party after the
occupation of Iraq.
The provisions of SOCPA are widely believed to have been brought in as a result of one man’s
protest. Brian Haw has been protesting in Parliament Square since June 2001 against British and
American policy towards Iraq. Nearly four years later, the High Court ruled that the requirement that
protests gain prior authorisation from the police did not apply retrospectively to Haw. However, this
victory was short-lived, as in May 2006 the Home Office won its appeal and Haw’s protest was
brought under the new restrictions. 49 While the protest was authorised as required, the police placed
conditions on it, including restricting the area in which he could demonstrate to three metres high by
three metres wide by one metre deep. Haw was arrested again for failing to comply with these
conditions in August 2007. This time the High Court ruled that the conditions imposed were “so
unclear as to be unworkable and a breach of his human rights”. 50
The introduction of the ban on unauthorised protest around Parliament has resulted in many arrests,
court cases and a number of convictions. These include two persons arrested opposite Downing Street
for reading aloud, and without having gained permission from the police, the names of British soldiers
and Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq 51 – their convictions came even though their actions were described as
“peaceful”, “good-humoured” and “orderly”. 52 A management accountant was also arrested for standing
outside the gates of Downing Street with a banner containing a quote from the Magna Carta: “to noone
will we sell, to no-one will we refuse or delay justice or right”, and another from Aristotle: “the only
stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law”. The protestor was arrested for
demonstrating without authorisation in a protected area, but was not charged.
Individual defenders who are particularly active and outspoken often find themselves singled out. In
Canada, Quebec’s Superior Court, examining the case of a very active anti-globalisation protestor
who was repeatedly arrested, but in most cases acquitted at trial and on other occasions not charged
at all, agreed that: “… the bail conditions imposed on May 2001 have restrained his right to freedom,
opinion, expression and the right of freedom of association as protected by Article 2 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” The bail conditions included being forbidden from playing a
leadership or organisational role in any future peaceful protests, being barred from using a megaphone
during a protest, and being barred from any demonstration in the Quebec City judicial district. 53
To express his indignation at a guilty verdict for defamation, after a summary trial of officials of the
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), (the case having been brought by the Prime Minister and his father)
the Assistant Secretary-General of the SDP and two fellow activists wore T-shirts depicting a kangaroo
• CHRI 2009 REPORT: SILENCING THE DEFENDERS 19