UK Privacy Group Says Police Are Abusing Stop And Search Powers To Hassle Protesters
Most protest activity targets government entities. So, it's really no surprise that government entities prefer to target protesters. While most free" nations won't go so far as to introduce life sentences for protesting and/or fire a majority of local officials and replace them with handpicked loyalists, the general understanding is that protests targeting government entities are part of the natural state of things and, as such, should largely be tolerated if not actually protected.
But that's almost never the case. The protests in the United States that erupted following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis cop - land of free and home of the First Amendment - were greeted with violence, possibly illegal surveillance, and assaults of journalists and legal observers by the targets of the protests: US law enforcement.
The UK is no exception to the rule. Data obtained by Big Brother Watch shows UK police appear to be routinely abusing stop and search powers during protests.
Stop and searches in central London increase by more than a fifth on weekends when protests take place, according to civil liberties campaigners who say police are misusing the tactic to deliberately target demonstrators.
While it may make sense that more police interactions occur during protests when more officers are deployed to certain areas to maintain the peace, UK law place limits on stops and UK officers appear to be regularly ignoring those limitations.
Except in special circumstances, stop and search can be used only for a handful of specific reasons, mostly covering drugs, weapons and stolen goods, suggesting, according to activists, that police are stretching the limits of their powers.
Protesting is not a crime, no matter how many politicians and government entities wish it were. There's nothing about engaging in a protest that should allow a police officer to conclude someone might be engaging in other criminal activity. But it appears officers are ignoring these limits to hassle, intimidate, and otherwise violate the rights of protesters.
Unfortunately, the UK government may be moving towards codifying this sort of abuse.
The civil liberties group's investigation into stop and search data comes as Priti Patel, the home secretary, is proposing a significant extension of the grounds for justifying a search. A new public order bill currently before MPs would allow police to search almost anyone close to a protest deemed to be causing annoyance".
The sole purpose of this expansion of the law is to deter protests. And, as noted in the opening of the article, governments will always search for ways to curtail criticism directed at them. This appears to be Patel's solution: criminalizing the act of being the proximity of a protest. And since proximity is in the eye of the (cop) beholder, the stop and search abuses observed by Big Brother Watch will immediately become legitimate police activity.
Worse, the proposal would make stops and searches an at-will option by stripping away almost any legal pretense for forcing a UK resident to submit to interactions/questioning/frisks by police officers.
It will also grant police a new power to stop and search without suspicion, allowing any officer of the rank of inspector or above to make an order allowing officers to search anyone in a specified area for a specific period when protest-related offences may be committed.
If this passes, the United Kingdom should just rename itself Her Majesty's Police State and eliminate the unbelievable pretense that it gives a solitary fuck about the rights of its citizens. Protests against governments are an essential part of healthy free societies. Taking this option away gives governments all the power, leaving the governed subject to the whims and largesse of officials who are supposed to represent their constituents and argue for their best interests, rather than work tirelessly to undermine the rights of the people they serve.