Do we need a “democratic right” to protest?

Since the student demonstrations erupted last month, over government plans to slash EMA and increase tuition fees to £9000 per year, there has been a lot of debate over our “democratic right” to protest.  But what does the term actually mean?

Personally, I find the concept of requesting permission to hold a demonstration from our police and/or government, the same government we are supposed to be demonstrating against, to be a strange one.

“Dear Mr. Cameron; we oppose your ideological cuts, which will result in a million people losing their jobs, and we oppose your education reforms, which will create a two-tier education system in which only the rich will be able to afford to go to University.  Your coalition government is on the brink of collapse, and we would like to quicken the process.  What do you reckon?”

“Sure thing!  I’ll just advise Her Majesty’s Metropolitan Police to guide you for a brisk stroll down Whitehall.  Hopefully see you in Parliament Square around 2ish?”

Of course, demonstrations within the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament without prior permission are actually illegal under British law.  And this is the point; our government have no interest in a “democratic right to protest”; what they are interested in is allowing ineffectual protests to take place, to create an illusion of freedom of speech.  Up until now, this approach seems to have been fairly successful.

But people have had enough of marching from A to B.  Students are not coming out for the fun of it, or simply to cause trouble, they are coming out because they refuse to accept the government’s proposals.  They refuse to accept a rise in tuition fees from a Cabinet containing no fewer than sixteen millionaires, all of whom got a University education for free.  Why don’t we make every Member of Parliament voting for the rise in fees retrospectively pay £9000 for every year they went to University?

As always, hypocrisy is at the heart of the issue.  When the Iranian government brutally suppressed demonstrations in Tehran, their reaction was rightly condemned, but when our government suppresses demonstrations, people search for a justification.  Months after the Gaza demonstrations last January, the police arrested 119 people; many were arrested in dawn raids, with entire families handcuffed, and people dragged from their beds as they slept.  Is that normal in a “democratic” society?

And what about our role in “democracy promotion” abroad?  When the Iranian people democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh in 1951, he lasted only two years before being overthrown in a coup backed by the CIA and it’s widely thought our own MI6.  Mossadegh’s crime?  His intentions to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now known as BP.

Were the British government ever interested in the “democratic right to protest” of the Chagossian people; an entire population removed from their homes by Britain, in order to make way for an American military base.  Nevertheless, the Chagossians did protest, by taking their case to the British High Court in 2006.  The High Court ruled to allow the Chagossians to return to their homes, only for the Privy Council to overturn the decision.

The British government have no interest in so-called “democratic rights”, and they never have done.  The sooner we realise that, the better.

Recent Posts on Notebook - A selection of Independent views -

• The Debate: Should Amazon be selling Nazi flags?
• Ched Evans conviction: The internet is not the place to dispute rape
• Scotland's 50p alcohol tax: Battling health with money
• 'Videocracy' and 'Videology': Argentina's latest Falkland Islands / Malvinas stunt
• Let's talk about Death