The problem with the new Crime Bill - and why it provoked violence

For the past few weeks, the new Crime Bill has been the topic of controversy. Outrage to the bill became physical, notably in Bristol, resulting in criminal damage and many police officers injured by rioters. What led to the bill? Why did the bill provoke protests? And how does this all affect students?

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a proposed piece of legislation recommended by the Home Office. It covers a wide range of issues such as giving child murderers Whole Life Orders and protecting emergency workers. The controversial part of the bill is to do with police powers concerning protests.

It proposes to provide the police with a "more proactive approach" when tackling highly disruptive yet non-violent static protests. The context behind this was not to do with the reaction from the policing of the Sarah Everard vigil, which took place in Clapham Common. Rather, it is related to the Extinction Rebellion protests of last year. Although highly disruptive, they were not violent. Under the legislation at the time, the police were limited in what they could do to control the antics of the radical environmentalist organisation. Therefore, this bill will "widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests, to match existing police powers to impose conditions on marches". The police will control the start and finish times of static protests and impose a maximum noise level on them. The police will also impose these measures on one-person protests.

The problem with this bill is that it criminalises peaceful protests. I am sure that many will find Extinction Rebellion and their antics incredibly annoying. Still, this bill will not only affect them. It will affect other legitimate protests, including the many led by students.

A policy paper on the bill reads, "The first duty of government is to protect its citizens and communities, keep them safe and to ensure that they can get on with their daily lives peacefully and without unnecessary interference." I would argue that the government has not obeyed that duty. I can't entirely agree that we are able to live our lives peacefully "without unnecessary interference". The government is essentially saying that these static protests unnecessarily hamper our daily lives. Yet, they have imposed measures with the same effect. And for this, I charge the government with hypocrisy.

In the past year, we have seen the government clamping down on our civil liberties. Many will argue that they were right in doing so temporarily. But power corrupts. I am not claiming some conspiracy theory. It is only natural for a state to preserve new powers. It is much harder for a modern state to give it up suddenly, and the government has the perfect opportunity to consolidate its new 'temporary' powers.

Civilian violence, however, is not and can never be the appropriate response to (proposed) legislation with which we disagree. The hectic scenes seen at Bristol only justify more police powers. It is a shame that our politicians think the proposed clampdown on protests is acceptable. It is also a shame that other politicians and public figures downplayed the gravity of the violent protests. The sensible majority need to show their disapproval of the bill civilly. Write to your MP, sign petitions, and protest peacefully.