The storm provoked after the arrest of 64 anti-monarchist demonstrators on the day of the coronation of Carlos III is far from going out. The Interior Committee of the House of Commons questioned this Wednesday two representatives of the policeto two of the activists detained and a lawyer expert in human rights to clarify if there was an attack on freedom of expression or if, on the contrary, the agents acted correctly according to the controversy Public Order Lawapproved a few days before the coronation.
Among those arrested on the day of the celebrations were eight members from the anti-monarchist group Republicwho were arrested for carrying ropes that could be used, according to the police, to tie themselves to some places and interrupt part of the coronation parades. The use of materials such as tapes or ropes to hinder the work of the police in the eviction of the demonstrations is one of the prohibited actions in the new regulation and punishable by up to six months in prison. Something that gave the agents the sufficient arguments to make the arrests.
conflicting versions
The Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Matt Twist, has defended the actions of the police force in an event that has been described as “the biggest protection operation” they have ever carried out. “Taking into account the time, the location and the proximity to the parade, the agents believed that the material found could be used for the protesters to they will tie. That’s why I know made the arrests“. The representative of the police has denied that at any time there was political pressure to carry out the arrests and has assured that they had intelligence information which pointed to an attempt to disrupt the coronation acts.
Some statements that activists have denied. “There has not been a single email or mobile message that could suggest that we had any intention of doing anything illegal,” said the leader of Republic, graham smith, held by the police for 16 hours along with the rest of the group’s activists. Smith has reminded the members of the committee that there was fluid communication with the police days before the coronation and that the agents they knew the actions that they were going to carry out. “We told them exactly what we wanted to do, how many banners we were going to carry, how many flags and how many megaphones,” explained the activist.
controversial law
Police representatives have insisted that they acted correctly under the new law, despite the fact that the activists were released without charge hours later and even Scotland Yard issued a statement the following Monday apologizing to the detainees for having prevented them from attending the protests and assuring that there was not enough evidence to demonstrate an attempt to disrupt the event. Twist has denied that the short time between the approval of the law and its implementation was one of the causes of the arrests. “We believe that we were prepared to inform the agents, they knew what they had to do,” he said.
Related news
The limitations to the freedom of demonstration contemplated in the new norm the alarms have gone off among experts in defense of human rights. Lawyer Adam Wagner, another of the witnesses questioned by the deputies, has stressed that the text may harm democracy, by discouraging other protesters from exercising their rights. “We are facing powers of oppression necessary to prevent crimes, but on the other hand they turn peaceful protests into a personal risk for those who carry them out”, he explained.
The six Conservative MPs of the committee have hardly shown concern about these facts and have highlighted the role of the police in maintaining order during the massive coronation ceremonies, while the Scottish Nationalist MP and the Labor MPsincluding the chair of the committee, Diana JohnsonThey have shown consternation at some points in the interrogation. In any case, a reform of the law seems a remote scenario, since for now the Labor leader, Keir StarmerIt has been resisted explaining if it would end with it in case of achieving a sufficient majority in the next elections.