Even protestors in western democracies obey the law
Apr 17, 2011
WHEN you read comment from Ugandan opposition and their propaganda machinery, you would think that the Uganda government is doing the undo-able, stamping on citizens rights with no good reason except self preservation. What a wrong conclusion.
By Dennis Katungi
WHEN you read comment from Ugandan opposition and their propaganda machinery, you would think that the Uganda government is doing the undo-able, stamping on citizens rights with no good reason except self preservation. What a wrong conclusion.
Let’s see how other countries, notably the mother of all democracies handle protests. In Britain for example, no demonstration of any sort can take place without informing the Police in reasonable time and pointing out detail such as organisers, date, time, route to be taken and reasons for demonstrating.
Even Ugandan opposition groups resident in UK know this policy and adhere to it whenever they want to make their displeasure known by demonstration.
Opposition in Uganda and their backers refer to routine policing of protests as ‘repression’ and similar policy and tactics in the West are referred to as ‘keeping law and order. What double standards!
Recently some local authorities in London passed by-laws demanding that any group of people intending to use public space, like roads, parks and buildings have to notify the local authority three weeks before hand.
The most recent example was cited by the Daily Mail is the Borough of Brent. Every year the Christians from different churches in Brent get together to march a 400-yard route to celebrate Easter.
But this year, their Good Friday parade has been banned–because it breaches health and safety laws. Note that these are peaceful church goers not your politically charged demonstrators.
In 2005, North Yorkshire Police made an application to court for an Anti-Social Behaviour Order against the campaign for Accountability of American Bases.
CAAB was causing a nuisance around American bases with their protests. The implications for the future of peaceful protest were potentially very serious as the application was for a 10-mile exclusion area around the American base at Menwith Hill for a period of 10 years.
The point to make is that all governments including the so-called developed ones try as much as possible to police and facilitate protests of any sort because there are health and safety implications, law and order issues as well as preserving the peace of other uninvolved citizens going about their daily routines.
There is no Carte Blanche anywhere in the world that civil rights and liberties override all else or that citizens just wake up and protest any how without due consideration for other factors.
Finally, all citizens intending to protest anywhere in the world ought to know that they have to inform authorities about their intentions and work with them to ensure the protest is indeed peaceful.
The alternative is what they call anarchy. There is nothing to show that Besigye, Mao et-al conform to these simple rules whenever they organise protests. It is as if they live in no-man’s land. That’s not on.
No one would dispute that policing a charged protest is a difficult task, requiring delicate judgments that must be made under great pressure.
Certainly, the recent High Court ruling in UK on policing demonstrations attests to this. Court was fair to the Metropolitan Police as it passed down a ruling on the containment, or so-called “kettlingâ€, of demonstrators who had assembled to make their point as the world’s leaders swept into London for the G20 summit two years ago.
The court cited examples of mad men running amok with guns, and quoted all manner of precedents to make the point that there is a distinction between the necessary restriction of liberty and the unlawful deprivation of it. One may urgue with veracity that in recent events in Uganda, there has been a necessary restriction, not unlawful deprivation of the rights of protestors.
The final point I make is that policing of demonstrations must always be proportionate; the police must recognise the fundamental need to facilitate peaceful protest while dealing with the specific problem of preventing criminal acts committed by a minority.
There should never be random use of tear gas or indiscriminate shooting. It was appalling to see a picture of a pregnant woman allegedly injured by a stray bullet. Police in Uganda must continually train and improve on tactics of crowd control.
The unfortunate bit is that opposition protestors in Uganda never give the authorities a chance to facilitate any protest by following rules. That may well be because their motive for protest is always misjudged and ill intentioned.
The writer is Bureau Chief, Communications Bureau – Kampala
WHEN you read comment from Ugandan opposition and their propaganda machinery, you would think that the Uganda government is doing the undo-able, stamping on citizens rights with no good reason except self preservation. What a wrong conclusion.
Let’s see how other countries, notably the mother of all democracies handle protests. In Britain for example, no demonstration of any sort can take place without informing the Police in reasonable time and pointing out detail such as organisers, date, time, route to be taken and reasons for demonstrating.
Even Ugandan opposition groups resident in UK know this policy and adhere to it whenever they want to make their displeasure known by demonstration.
Opposition in Uganda and their backers refer to routine policing of protests as ‘repression’ and similar policy and tactics in the West are referred to as ‘keeping law and order. What double standards!
Recently some local authorities in London passed by-laws demanding that any group of people intending to use public space, like roads, parks and buildings have to notify the local authority three weeks before hand.
The most recent example was cited by the Daily Mail is the Borough of Brent. Every year the Christians from different churches in Brent get together to march a 400-yard route to celebrate Easter.
But this year, their Good Friday parade has been banned–because it breaches health and safety laws. Note that these are peaceful church goers not your politically charged demonstrators.
In 2005, North Yorkshire Police made an application to court for an Anti-Social Behaviour Order against the campaign for Accountability of American Bases.
CAAB was causing a nuisance around American bases with their protests. The implications for the future of peaceful protest were potentially very serious as the application was for a 10-mile exclusion area around the American base at Menwith Hill for a period of 10 years.
The point to make is that all governments including the so-called developed ones try as much as possible to police and facilitate protests of any sort because there are health and safety implications, law and order issues as well as preserving the peace of other uninvolved citizens going about their daily routines.
There is no Carte Blanche anywhere in the world that civil rights and liberties override all else or that citizens just wake up and protest any how without due consideration for other factors.
Finally, all citizens intending to protest anywhere in the world ought to know that they have to inform authorities about their intentions and work with them to ensure the protest is indeed peaceful.
The alternative is what they call anarchy. There is nothing to show that Besigye, Mao et-al conform to these simple rules whenever they organise protests. It is as if they live in no-man’s land. That’s not on.
No one would dispute that policing a charged protest is a difficult task, requiring delicate judgments that must be made under great pressure.
Certainly, the recent High Court ruling in UK on policing demonstrations attests to this. Court was fair to the Metropolitan Police as it passed down a ruling on the containment, or so-called “kettlingâ€, of demonstrators who had assembled to make their point as the world’s leaders swept into London for the G20 summit two years ago.
The court cited examples of mad men running amok with guns, and quoted all manner of precedents to make the point that there is a distinction between the necessary restriction of liberty and the unlawful deprivation of it. One may urgue with veracity that in recent events in Uganda, there has been a necessary restriction, not unlawful deprivation of the rights of protestors.
The final point I make is that policing of demonstrations must always be proportionate; the police must recognise the fundamental need to facilitate peaceful protest while dealing with the specific problem of preventing criminal acts committed by a minority.
There should never be random use of tear gas or indiscriminate shooting. It was appalling to see a picture of a pregnant woman allegedly injured by a stray bullet. Police in Uganda must continually train and improve on tactics of crowd control.
The unfortunate bit is that opposition protestors in Uganda never give the authorities a chance to facilitate any protest by following rules. That may well be because their motive for protest is always misjudged and ill intentioned.
The writer is Bureau Chief, Communications Bureau – Kampala