Photo: Flickr
Another day, another legal battle launched against the government. This time, it’s Suella Braverman in the firing line. The Home Secretary has been accused of ‘trying to bring in legislation via the back door’, in her attempts to force through a set of new anti-protest laws.
Despite being warned about the potential illegality of crackdowns against civil liberties, Braverman is insistent that police should be given more powers to tackle disruptive protests. However, the wording of the legislation has become a genuine cause for concern.
The bill would seek to place more restrictions on demonstrations that even cause the slightest disturbance. It’s bad news for the likes of Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, whose tactics usually depend on creating a inconvenience to get their message across.
That’s why Liberty are taking things into their own hands. They are the UK’s largest civil liberties organisation, and they have been campaigning for human rights for almost a century. In a statement released this week, they explained why they are preparing for a courtroom showdown:
“We have started legal action against the Home Secretary Suella Braverman over new anti-protest legislation which it says that she is unlawfully bringing in by the back door despite not having been given the powers to do so by Parliament.”
“Plans to give the police more powers to impose restrictions on protests that cause ‘more than minor’ disruption are unlawful. The move violates the constitutional principle of the separation of powers because the measures have already been rejected by Parliament.” | Liberty
Katy Watts, a lawyer working for Liberty, fears that Suella Braverman has clearly crossed the line. She believes the Home Secretary does not have the power to bypass Parliament – and the legal expert is confident that a judge will rule in their favour.
“Braverman has side-lined Parliament to sneak in new legislation via the back door, despite not having the powers to do so. The wording of the new law is so vague that anything deemed ‘more than a minor’ disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it.” | Katy Watts
