Concern about climate change has increased sharply in the last few years; polling now indicates it is the joint-third most important issue to Britons, behind only the economy and inflation. With this increasing concern and fear, the public has been keener to take action and protest. Well-established environmental groups such as Greenpeace have been committed to disrupting environmental injustice for decades – but it was radical environmental groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil that took the media by storm with their extreme protest tactics. But with this attention comes a wave of backlash and controversy. In response to the escalating protests, the UK government has introduced the Public Order Bill, which aims to criminalise certain protest tactics.
This piece examines the implications of the Public Order Bill on our fundamental right to protests and the balance between public order and free expression.
PUBLIC CONCERN OVER CLIMATE CHANGE
Disruptive protests tactics such as those favoured by JSO and XR are not only disliked by many members of the public, but they also cost the Met Police a huge amount of money. In November 2021, XR’s climate protests in London cost the Met Police over £18m. In April and October 2019, XR also brought central London to a standstill for days, which led to thousands of people being arrested. This has been estimated to cost the Met Police over £37m.
Most recently, a 13-week long campaign by Just Stop Oil has cost the Met Police more than £7.7m. Since April, Just Stop Oil has carried out 515 protests, which have seen them have march on main roads and disrupt events including The Open, Wimbledon, the Ashes, the London Pride March and the Chelsea Flower Show.
The hate that radical protests receive from both the government, emergency services, and public have raised the question of whether such disruptive protests should be allowed. But these critiques fail to consider the potential cost of inaction on climate change. Research from Deloitte last year revealed that unchecked climate change could cost the global economy US$178 trillion (£140 trillion) over the next 50 years, unless global leaders unite in a systemic net-zero transition.
THE PUBLIC ORDER BILL
Such radical climate protests aren’t just a UK phenomenon – protestors are also taking to the streets in many other countries, including Germany and France. With the rise of these protests, the government has introduced the Public Order Bill. Recent discussions surrounding the Public Order Bill have sparked concerns among citizens and activists alike. The Public Order Bill aims to criminalise certain protest tactics, such as locking oneself onto others, objects or buildings, a tactic which is often used by Extinction Rebellion and many other groups. The government has justified creating this Bill by stating that:
“Over recent years, guerrilla tactics used by a small minority of protesters have caused a disproportionate impact on the hardworking majority seeking to go about their everyday lives, cost millions in taxpayers’ money and put lives at risk. This has included halting public transport networks, disrupting fuel supplies and preventing hundreds of hard-working people from getting to their jobs. Protests such as these remove police from their regular duties tackling crime in local communities. The measures in the Public Order Bill will improve the police’s ability to manage such protests and take a proactive approach to prevent such disruption happening in the first place.”
In any democratic society, the right to protest is a fundamental pillar of free expression and an essential tool for holding those in power accountable. The Public Order Bill has received much backlash as it undermines our core fundamental right to protest. While it does not completely criminalise protesting, the scale and nature of such protests are now severely limited. Criminalising certain protest tactics is problematic. Such legislation can have a chilling effect on activism by discouraging citizens from participating in protests due to fear of legal consequences. The Bill can ultimately limit our right to freedom of expression as well as deter individuals from exercising their democratic right to protest.
It is true that the protests have caused a great deal of disruption – but that is precisely the point. Taking away disruption from a protest severely reduces its effectiveness and defeats its very purpose. The right to protest is a fundamental pillar of free expression and accountability in a democratic society. Striking a balance between protecting this right and maintaining public order requires careful consideration. As we navigate the complexities of climate change activism, it is important we find solutions that preserve our democratic principles while addressing legitimate concerns about disruptions and public safety. By engaging in open discussions and democratic processes, we can create legislation that safeguards both the right to protest and the well-being of society at large.
As mentioned above, the Bill has introduced new criminal offence of ‘locking-on’ and ‘going equipped to lock on’. The government states that:
“These measures criminalise the protest tactic of individuals attaching themselves to others, objects or buildings to cause serious disruption. The locking-on offence will carry a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of going equipped to lock-on will be an unlimited fine.”
The tactics of attaching oneself to others/buildings has been infamously used many times throughout history, most notably by the suffragettes who chained themselves to gates and railings in protest for women’s rights. If the suffragettes had not used these extreme forms of protest tactics, would women’s rights be where they are today? Thanks to the suffragettes and their protests, women gained the right to vote and opened doors for women to own property. History has shown again and again that radical protest tactics can exert significant pressure on decision-makers. By disrupting the normal functioning of society, these tactics compel those in power to acknowledge and address the concerns of citizens, propelling social and political change.
Disruption is key to a successful protest. Simply standing on the street with some signs and banners will not give us what we want. It will not create change. And it will certainly not challenge the government and make them listen to us. We need to be heard, not seen.