Modern day prophets include people such as Greta Thunberg, Vanessa Nakate, Antonio Guterres and Pope Francis.
Greta Thunberg began her prophetic journey began with a climate strike. Rather than spending Fridays in school, she sat alone outside the Swedish Parliament with her simple placard – “Skolstrejk for Klimatet” – calling on those in authority to take action.
With her single minded determination, she took this message, in 2019, to the World Economic Forum: “I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to behave like our house is on fire. Because it is.”
And to the United Nations climate summit: “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. … People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?”
Her words and actions drew – and continue to draw – widespread attention to the urgency and scale of the climate crisis. In the six years since her speech about house on fire, we have clearly experienced scorching temperatures, more frequent outbreaks of wild fire, as well as the first signs that whole ecosystems – eg the coral reefs and the Amazon rainforest – are on the brink of collapse.
In November 2014, UN Secretary-General António Guterres sent young climate activists this message: “You have every right to be angry. I am angry too,” the UN chief posted on social media on Thursday following his meeting with youth representatives and young environmental activists. “I am angry because we are on the verge of the climate abyss, and I don’t see enough urgency or political will to address the emergency.”
The original meaning of prophecy was of a message about the future that was revealed to the prophet by divine inspiration and this is reflected in the root Greek word “prophēteia ” meaning the gift of interpreting the will of the gods. (1) Now – perhaps because fewer people place their faith in divine inspiration – prophecy more often means a statement or observation predicting what will happen in the future.
Prophecies don’t necessarily come with absolute certainty. For example Jonah was sent to Ninevah with a prophecy predicting that if the people did not repent of their wrong doing , they would be punished. The warning is taken on board, the people repent and Ninevah – much to Jonah’s anger – is saved. Indeed most of the prophets from the first half of the Bible, have messages that call on the people to repent lest they wish endure significant suffering and destruction – although sometimes they have messages which predict a life of peace and flourishing for those who honour God’s way.
Effective prophecy in these situations is prophecy that leads people to reshape the way they live.
There is very much a need for effective prophecy today; prophetic words – and actions – that can motivate people to turn away from lifestyles that are destroying lives and ecosystems, and instead to adopt ways of living that are caring and kind and respectful of the Earth’s planetary boundaries.
Legal restrictions on the right to protest have increased significantly in the last few years as a result of two new pieces of legislation: the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (“Policing”) Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023.
The Policing Act further restricts what forms of protest are permissible. Police may restrict or ban protests that cause more than ‘minor disruption’, that are noisy, that are within the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, and/ or obstruct the highway. The police are also now given powers to restrict static protests and one-person protests.
The Public Order Act gives the police even more powers to restrict protests. . It expands police powers to stop and search. It gives them powers to ban people from participating in protests and limiting who they may associate with. It also creates new criminal offences for actions that might form part of a protest such as as locking-on, tunnelling, obstructing major transport works and/ or interfering with key national infrastructure.
For a more detailed analysis of these two Acts look at Liberty’s website. (1)
In the courts there has been an erosion of the legal defences that protestors may use to justify their action. The Campaign Against Climate Change gives this summary:
In 2021, the Court of Appeal, although it overturned the convictions for the ‘Stansted 15’, upheld the original judge’s ruling that the defence of ‘necessity’ did not apply to protesters.
In 2022, the Court of Appeal decided, after intervention from the then Attorney General, Suella Braverman, that protesters accused of ‘significant’ criminal damage cannot use as a defence their right to protest under the European Convention of Human Rights.
In 2024, after intervention from another Attorney General, Victoria Prentis, the Court of Appeal said the “beliefs and motivation” of a defendant do not constitute lawful excuse for causing damage to a property
The principle of ‘Hoffmann’s bargain‘ following a case in 2006, held that motives of conscience and intention to avert a greater harm would be taken into account and lead to more lenient sentencing. From the case of the Stansted 15 onwards, this principle has been lost.” (2)
The Victorian had differing views about the poor. There were the deserving poor – those who by ill chance not fecklessness had become poor and who wed good and honest people who,would make good use of your charity and would be eternally grateful. And there were the undeserving poor – those who had by laziness stupidity made themselves poor, who would squander any charity they received and would never utter a word of thanks. In fact that is an attitude that still exists today. In 2023, Jeremy Hunt, the then chancellor, spoke about ‘strivers and shirkers’.
Poverty arises for very many reasons, key among which are lack of opportunity – usually linked to inequalities of wealth – a failure to understand specific needs and the systemic failure of society. This week Pope Leo wrote of the “many forms of poverty: the poverty of those who lack material means of subsistence, the poverty of those who are socially marginalised and lack the means to give voice to their dignity and abilities, moral and spiritual poverty, cultural poverty . . . the poverty of those who have no rights, no space, no freedom.”
In today’s gospel we hear how ten lepers came to Jesus seeking healing. Jesus doesn’t question them to see which might be most deserving of his help. He doesn’t assess them to see which might make best use of his healing power. He doesn’t exclude from healing those who are not Jewish. He doesn’t even limit his healing to those who will be truly grateful.
Jesus’s healing is not limited to just some people some of the time, nor is it dependent on their righteousness or even their love of God. God’s love is offered to all without exception. To give, to share love, to desire the healing and wellbeing of all is the essential nature of God. Indeed God so loved the world that she gave her only Son for our salvation.
When we consider the poor in our own country, when we consider the poor in Gaza and in Israel, when we consider the poor in North Sudan – when we hear their cry – we are called to respond with open hearts and purses, not limiting our love to those who look and think like us, to those we think are deserving of our concern. Indeed if we thought about it, healing just some of the wounds in the world will be to leave ourselves with a damaged world in which we too may then become victims.
The passage from Jeremiah is God’s message to those going into exile. Don’t just be good citizens in your own homes, in your own country, but be good citizens where ever you are. Don’t be good citizens just when you are the ones in power, but whatever your situation, whatever your environment, be good citizens, for only then will you protect the environment that sustains you.
In the same way, not to care for the poor, is not to care for your own future and wellbeing. Yet so many of our economic and social systems, so many people (those in authority and those who are not) operate on the premise that hearing out for the cry of the poor – and the cry of the Earth – is not important, that spending the needs of the poor is a luxury when there is spare money, and that actually looking after number one is the key to survival. This is certainly not the gospel message!
To finish, more words from Pope Leo: “The dignity of every human person must be respected today, not tomorrow, and the extreme poverty of all those to whom this dignity is denied should constantly weigh upon our consciences. . . Either we regain our moral and spiritual dignity or we fall into a cesspool”.
Jeremiah 29:1, 4-7
These are the words of the letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the remaining elders among the exiles, and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon.
Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.
Psalm 66:1-11
1 Be joyful in God, all you lands; * sing the glory of his Name; sing the glory of his praise.
2 Say to God, “How awesome are your deeds! * because of your great strength your enemies cringe before you.
3 All the earth bows down before you, * sings to you, sings out your Name.”
4 Come now and see the works of God, * how wonderful he is in his doing toward all people.
5 He turned the sea into dry land, so that they went through the water on foot, * and there we rejoiced in him.
6 In his might he rules for ever; his eyes keep watch over the nations; * let no rebel rise up against him.
7 Bless our God, you peoples; * make the voice of his praise to be heard;
8 Who holds our souls in life, * and will not allow our feet to slip.
9 For you, O God, have proved us; * you have tried us just as silver is tried.
10 You brought us into the snare; * you laid heavy burdens upon our backs.
11 You let enemies ride over our heads; we went through fire and water; * but you brought us out into a place of refreshment.
2 Timothy 2:8-15
Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David– that is my gospel, for which I suffer hardship, even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But the word of God is not chained. Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, so that they may also obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. The saying is sure:
If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful– for he cannot deny himself.
Remind them of this, and warn them before God that they are to avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth.
Luke 17:11-19
On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee. As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance, they called out, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” When he saw them, he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went, they were made clean. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. He prostrated himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus asked, “Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they? Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.”
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Matthew 6: 28b,29
You Lord, are the source of all good things:
We praise you.
You call us to tend and care for your creation:
May we strive to do your will.
You have made us as brothers and sisters with all that lives:
May we live together in peace.
A reading from Proverbs 3:13-15
Happy are those who find wisdom, and those who get understanding,
for her income is better than silver, and her revenue better than gold.
She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire can compare with her.
Response:
If with wisdom we tend the earth,
if with an understanding of creation
we shape our daily lives,
then daisies will be our silver.
If with wisdom we tend the earth,
if with an understanding of creation
we choose to measure wealth,
then buttercups will be our gold.
If with wisdom we tend the earth,
if with an understanding of creation
we value streams and rivers,
then raindrops will be our diamonds.
If with wisdom we tend the earth,
if with an understanding of creation,
we protect trees and forests
then leaves will be our emeralds.
If with wisdom we tend the earth,
if with an understanding of creation
we cherish insects and pollinators,
then roses will be our rubies.
If with wisdom we tend the earth,
if with an understanding of creation,
we love our fellow creatures,
then fullness of life will be our everlasting treasure.
(With thanks to Jan Struther’s for the hymn ‘Daises are our sliver’.)
Ever patient God,
forgive us when we focus on the the work of our hands
and disregard yours.
Forgive us when we think we know all the answers
and yet ignore yours.
Forgive us when we value human approbation
more highly than yours.
Forgive us when we hoard monetary wealth
and neglect the wealth that comes from serving you.
Forgive us when our desire for more takes away
what we might rightly have shared with the rest of your creation.
In your loving mercy,
hear us and pardon us.
Amen.
Creator God, source of wisdom and understanding
inspire us to discover the true treasures of life on earth.
Open our eyes to see the full glory of what you have created.
Guide us not to be selfish,
neither keeping that wealth for ourselves
nor squandering it.
Remind us to be grateful, giving thanks and praise
Amnesty defines nonviolent direct action as actions that do not make use of physical force against an individual, do not cause others to fear the immediate use of violence, nor advocate violence of discrimination. NVDA is an umbrella term that includes civil disobedience as well as activities… [such as] letter writing and collecting petition signatures, to rallies, demonstrations and media stunts, and extending to higher risk activities such as banner drops [&] sit-ins…” (1)
People typically turn to NVDA when they feel that they are not being listened to, that the response being taken is too slow, or to raise awareness about an issue. This is particularly true of the climate crisis where activists feel that the actions being taken by businesses, organisations and governments are not sufficient in response to the scale of the threat. In the past NVDA has been used by the suffragettes and the suffragists, by civil rights groups, by anti nuclear protesters and by the anti apartheid movement, to name but a few.
A frequent comment addressed to activists is, that rather than disrupting the public by walking down a road or blockading an oil refinery, they should use the ballot box to effect the change they want to see. But is that possible? Does our democracy pay attention to us as citizens?
I frequently write to my MP about issues such as the CAN Bill and the Rosebank oil field, asking her to support the former and oppose the latter. But mine is only a small voice amongst many, and even though in principal she does support the CAN Bill, that has not been enough to see the Bill pass into law – it was widely opposed by the Labour Party.
Many people voted for the Labour Party in 2024 and the party won a substantial majority. In their manifesto Labour’s biggest spending commitment was to be an additional £23.7bn for green measures (a figure already cut back from an earlier promise of £28bn a year). Once in government that sum has been cut back again and again. For example the £13.2bn to be spent on upgrading the nation’s homes will now include £5bn of loans nor grants. And of the £8bn pledged for GB Energy, £2.5bn is in now going into Great British Nuclear (conveniently renamed GB Energy – Nuclear). (1) Manifesto promises are not binding: they may suggest the sort of things the party will pursue when in power but that is all. As individual voters our only remedy is to write to our MP or the relevant minister and ask that they adhere to their promises – or to take protest action! Otherwise we just have to wait another five years and hope the then government will be better at delivering on its promises.
So who does influence government policy?
Think tanks
Think tanks “are open organisations, built around a permanent base of researchers or experts, whose mission, on the one hand, is to develop analyses, summaries and ideas on an objective basis with a view to inform the conduct of private or public strategies in the general interest; on the other hand, to actively debate issues within their field of competence.” (2) Think tanks may be funded by private or charitable donations or from government funds. Some are transparent about their funding, others less so. Some are aligned to particular political parties, others are apolitical.
Based on research for the period 2015-2021, Overton identified the following as possibly the top ten think tanks cited in government policy documents. (3)
However there are caveats. Does measuring which think tank is most cited in government documents a good indicator of their ability to influence government policy? Some areas of policy making generates a higher proportion of publicly available documents – eg public health and welfare, whilst others – such as defence – do not. And you can’t count the number of citations in a document you can’t access. There will also be think tanks that have considerable influence but don’t produce reports that are cited. Not present in Overton’s list are think tanks such as the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute yet thwir ideas featured large during Liz Truss’s short term as prime minister.(4) One of the questions around the more extreme right wing think tanks is the source of their funds and to what extent their research is influenced by wealthy individuals. (5)
Certainly think tanks do influence government policy but they are not accountable to the ballot box.
Economists
Economists and economic theories certainly influence government policy making, either because the respective political party has grown up with a particular economic tradition or because its current leader and/ chancellor has a favourite economic model. Most think tanks will include economic analysis too. NB If you have read Kate Raworth’s book on Doughnut Economics, you may well question the value of much other advice that comes from traditional and neo-liberal economists.
Scientists
Scientists do advise governments especially in the area of climate change and biodiversity loss – eg members of the Climate Change Committee – and areas of health such as we saw during Covid when the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, who was directly advising the government. However, as Whitty later reported, his advice was then adjusted by the political agenda: “… he had been personally sceptical about making covid vaccination a condition of employment for some healthcare staff in England. He said that the policy was “100% a political decision” that was essentially about balancing two risks and rights against one another: “the risk to the person who is being cared for versus the risk to the individual that their right to essentially not have a medical procedure, or lose their job, is protected.” As a doctor, he argued that there was “a big difference” between a “professional responsibility” to protect patients from giving them communicable diseases, including vaccinating staff, and “legally mandating it so that you lose your job if not.”” (6)
Scientists who contribute to the work of the Climate Change Committee face similar problems. Their role is to present the scientific facts and suggest policies that will meet the demands of net zero but they cannot require government to follow a particular course of action. Whilst the CCC has repeatedly cautioned against expanding airports in the UK, because of their significant adverse impact on carbon reduction targets, they have not been asked to assess the carbon emissions arising from building additional ways at Heathrow and Gatwick, despite government announcements that these expansions would take place. (7)
Political advisers and civil servants
“Civil servants are government employees responsible for implementing and executing public policies… [setting] guidelines and regulations to address societal concerns… Civil servants possess valuable knowledge and experience necessary for the formulation and implementation of policies…They bridge the gap between elected officials and the implementation of policies, providing continuity and expertise throughout political transitions. Furthermore, civil servants provide valuable insights into the practical implications of potential policy changes, considering the administrative capacity, budgetary constraints, and legal framework.” (8)
Political advisers (known as special advisers or ‘spads’) are political appointees. Special advisers are appointed to provide a particular skill or fill a particular role on a short term basis. The appointment may be short term and, since they are appointed by the relevant minister loose their appointment when that minister leaves office. They are not bound by the same rules of impartiality as civil servants – however various codes of practice now exist regulate the powers they can exert. (9) Special advisers can significantly influence government policy -for better or worse. This following commentary comes from the New Statesman:-
“Dominic Cummings made Boris Johnson. Against all odds, he won him the 2016 EU referendum. He finagled a 2019 general election for Johnson when parliamentary opposition to Brexit was making a second referendum look increasingly likely. He won him that election by “flipping” scores of traditional Labour seats. It was a Faustian bargain. To achieve all that Johnson – formerly a liberal-minded, immigrant-supporting, pro-business mayor of London – had to sell his soul by lying, fanning xenophobia, fomenting ugly nationalism, undermining democratic institutions and embracing a crude and shameless populism. Cummings had no scruples about how he won.” (10)
As with think tanks, special advisers also have no accountability to the electorate.
Lobbyists
“Lobbying is the process of trying to persuade the government, or a political party, to change their policies. The term originates from the lobby of the House of Commons where you could go to try and persuade your MP to adopt a certain position. Lobbying is an important part of the British political process and is sometimes very controversial.” (11)
Lobbying takes two forms – in-house lobbying where charities, corporations or other organisations employ full-time lobbyists, and outsourced where similar groups will employ an outside firm of lobbyists to act on their behalf.
Historically lobbying was unregulated – it was equated with free speech – but the Lobbying Act (2014) does imposes some restrictions. However (!) these only apply to individuals or firms acting on the behalf of a third party whilst in-house lobbyists are not included. Some £2bn a year is spent on lobbying and the feedback from big businesses and other organisations such as the NFU, is that it works. Governments do adapt their policies in response to successful lobbying. (12) (NB Do watch this illustrative video clip about lobbying – https://youtu.be/04BlQh4du5I?si=bItDobvoZ3N40JJC)
An investigation by Global Witness revealed an increasing number of meetings between fossil fuel representatives and government ministers. “UK government ministers met with representatives from the oil and gas sector at least 343 times in 2023, according to Global Witness analysis of data collected by Transparency International UK.That’s equivalent to 1.4 meetings per working day of the year and marks an increase from the 330 meetings held in 2022.” (13)
Over this period 2022 and 2023 the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels led to rising fuel prices, increasing fuel poverty and rising profits for oil companies, yet the government consistently back-tracked on its climate commitments ! (14)
For those with money, lobbying is an effective tool to change government policy. An yet again it has no accountability to the ballot box.
Unions
Unions were established to improve their members working conditions and pay through lobbying their employers – and through nonviolent direct action such as striking. With increasing amounts of legislation surrounding employment rights and the powers of unions, unions are another group who lobby government to influence policy. In the autumn of 2024 a new bill – The Employment Rights Bill – was introduced, repealing and replacing the Trade Union Act 2016 which had been the latest development in restricting union powers. This Bill should receive Royal Assent and become law this autumn.
The following commentary from the TUC shows how think tanks and reports from economists, can influence government policy. “The move comes in the wake of growing evidence that a strong union workplace presence is good for workers and for the economy. Voices that previously promoted deregulation, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, have noted the benefits of collective bargaining for productivity, industrial change, equality and employment. A recent Cambridge University study of labour laws over the last 50 years found that strong employee representation laws consistently led to higher employment. Laws that protected rights to take industrial action meanwhile appeared to contribute to higher unemployment, productivity and to workers getting a higher share of national income. Likewise a NIESR study found that a strong union presence boosted productivity.” (15)
Unions do have power to influence government policy, and whilst not being accountable to voters generally, are accountable to their own members. Maybe groups such as environmentalists and climate activists should form the equivalent of a union to increase the power of their voice.
Public Opinion and the Media
Public opinion, according to Wikipedia, is “the collective opinion on a specific topic or voting intention relevant to society. It is the people’s views on matters affecting them.”
Public opinion is assessed through surveys and opinion polls. Professor Kuha professor in LSE’s Department of Statistics and an expert in survey methodology describes opinion polls as “a survey of public opinion from a particular sample group, and as such can be useful in informing politicians about the views of specific groups of people. In practice, pollsters need to balance the cost of polling a large sample against the reduction in sampling error, and so a typical compromise for political pollsters is to use a sample size of 1,000-10,000 respondents” and that “polls act as a feedback mechanism which could affect parties’ policy choices, whereas nearer to an election, they are feedback mechanism on how the campaign is going”. (16)
This suggests that, depending on who carries out the opinion poll (are they impartial or do they represent a certain viewpoint or position), what questions are asked and which sample group is surveyed, a degree of bias may appear in the poll. This article from YouGov explores some of the issues around the phrasing of survey questions (17)
Furthermore that bias may then serve to feed what underlies the initial bias. This feedback loop is often triggered by selective reporting by media outlets. This article from the Conversation, notes that the “traditional media selects which polls to emphasise from a large pool of results. Sometimes outlets do this with an eye to make interesting news or pander to the expectations of the public. The latter means that journalists may decide not to publish a poll showing an unexpected result, for example, even if they believe it to be true, out of concern that readers might see them as less credible.” (18)
Immigration is currently seen as a key public concern. Prior to the EU referendum concern about migration peaked as a top issue for 56% of respondents. Following the referendum this dropped steadily from 48% of respondents to just 6% in April 2020. Since then that figure has again been rising reaching 38% in October 2024. The Migration Observatory however also noted that “During this period, immigration has been prominent in the news, with record net migration figures hitting the headlines as well as irregular immigration and the issue of housing asylum seekers featuring large in the political agenda.” (19)
In response to this shift in public opinion, the current government and a number of small rightwing parties have shifted their policies to ones less sympathetic towards migrants. It would that public opinion polls and media interest can influence government policy. The opposite is also true.
21st April of this year (Environment Day) a global journalism collaboration – Covering Climate Now – released the results of a world wide survey to assess people’s responses to the climate crisis, revealing that, surprisingly, 89% of respondents were concerned and want their governments to take stronger climate action. From this they have launched the 89 Percent Project which seeks to explore why there is such a silent majority. (20) The Project will be releasing more findings later this month – but, nevertheless, it is not a issue that has made much headway in the media and nor has it made any impact (so far) on government policy in the UK.
Conclusion
Who gets to influence government policy? Those with the biggest lobbying budgets! Those who can get the attention of the media! Individual citizens can only hope to influence government policy if they can band together as a large, strong, well advised and vocal lobbying group.
This is not to undervalue the importance of voting at elections because each party does have at least mind a set of ideas it will implement if they are in power.
What does ‘woke’ mean and how does it impact free speech?
“Woke is an adjective derived from African-American English used since the 1930s or earlier to refer to awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination, often in the construction stay woke. The term acquired political connotations by the 1970s and gained further popularity in the 2010s with the hashtag #staywoke. Over time, woke came to be used to refer to a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism and denial of LGBTQ rights.”(1)
‘Woke’ is also used as a synonym for political correctness. It is often used as a term of abuse by someone who rejects or doesn’t want to accept new ways of understanding or new ways of doing things. As it often comes with a refusal to engage in discussion, it can be used to curtail free speech.
The following extract from an article from the Conversation, urges us to challenge anti-woke ideas and the careless use of language where it perpetuates social inequalities and prejudice.
“Real effort is required to learn to see injustices that are embedded in our ordinary language and everyday practices. Social psychological work on implicit biases suggests that good intentions and heartfelt commitments are not enough. It takes integrity and courage to critically examine our own behaviour and engage in honest conversations with people who claim we have hurt them. However, once we recognise what’s at stake, to dismiss something as woke is a refusal to even consider the possibility that the targeted practice might be offensive, premised on false or inaccurate claims or discriminatory or harmful.” (2)
Freedom of speech and the right to protest are key parts of maintaining a democracy. The following is from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.
“A healthy society contains a diversity of views, lifestyles, and beliefs. Individuals need to be able to freely discuss political issues, criticise their government, and express dissenting views – including assembling to challenge the government of the day – without censorship or reprisal. Both of these rights are enshrined in the Human Rights Act, which gives statutory force to the European Convention on Human Rights.” (1)
Yet these important rights are being eroded. Whilst in terms of policing this erosion comes through increasing amounts of legislation, the political will that sees such legislation being introduced comes from changes in our society – and these are changes we as Christians should counter, bringing to the fore the Gospel message that there is a better way of living together.
Again from the JRRT:-
“In the UK, as in other democracies, freedom of expression is under threat in new and complex ways, caught up in the battleground between different conceptions of offence and harm, debates around cancel culture, no platforming, ‘safe space’, online harms and academic freedom. Suppressing free speech is a core part of the authoritarian playbook, while at the same time invoked by populists in order to tap into resentment against elites, ‘wokeness’, and vulnerable communities such as migrants.” (1)
Requires public authorities, like the police, to act in a way that is compatible with your rights. The police also have the legal obligation to help protests take place. A legal obligation is something that the law requires you to do. It’s not optional.
Allows you to bring a claim in UK courts when your rights are not respected.” (1)
Liberty goes on to explain that the right to protest is not without some limitations, principally that the police can curtail or limit the right to protest if there are other legal laws to be considered (eg the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022) or to prevent crime and disorder, to protect public health or to protect the rights of others. Nevertheless these limits must be proportionate. What police may do – rather than banning a protest – is impose restrictions on that protest.
So for example when I am part of CCA’s regular vigil outside Parliament, the police many ask what are plans are, how many people we expect and how long we intend staying. Or for example a march such as the Palestinian Solidarity March, will be required to follow a specific route and start and finish at specified times. (Protests that involve moving as opposed to stationary protests typically need to be pre-arranged with the police).
Liberty’s webpage has more information about rights and legal restrictions around protest.
The Green Tau 