Yes.... and the police aren't saying they'll protect her but advising her instead not to exercise that right. Isn't that what the police are for?
It seems you're adding context to this story that isn't provided in the article you cited.
There is no statement from the police that she shouldn't exercise her right to free expression, rather a claim by her that she was advised to not attend a presumably public event at which her presence may put her in danger. There's also no statement or claim of a statement that she won't be protected, though police generally don't protect the individual and instead ostensibly protect the rights of the many by investigating crime and apprehending offenders.
www.london.gov.uk
The post was highlighting the irony that a speaker is allowed freedom of speech but is advised against using that right at a prominent location that is associated with freedom of speech.
It wasn't irony that you highlighted in that post. You highlighted two...things...and in the case of at least one of those...things...what you highlighted didn't even accurately reflect the situation to which you were referring.
Not really, though.
Except there aren't, so it shouldn't.
That's as it should be, but only so long as the consequence is itself legal. A business refusing service, someone arguing against, being fired, etc.
Nobody is saying it's an acceptable consequence. Just that her free speech is not being curtailed by the state.
Didn't say anyone was, that was just leading up to saying it wasn't reasonably an "expected or unavoidable consequence" either.
In precise legal definition, perhaps not. I didn't make an argument either way on that. However, the actions (and inactions) of the police do appear to make threats of violence an - unreasonably - expected consequence when this inevitably repeats. The police will presumably then act in the same way, making arrest the expected response to her speaking (assuming the threatening crowd show up as expected). In practice, her speech is curtailed.
Verbal threats of violence are a crime under the Public Order Act 1986.
I think my answer above about legal defintion kinda covers this. It gets to the point that the police don't even have to threaten arrest, if that is the expected outcome of ignoring the "her own safety" warning.
According to your link it's only actionable if they think it'll be acted upon. I'm making the distinction because I think to have her delivering a sermon at Speaker's Corner that could be said to be inflammatory, while under police protection who are looking to arrest anyone who shouts threats from the crowd, could set an unwelcome precedent if those threats can't be proved to be anything other than just empty bluster.
The police clearly thought there was a real threat of violence, so I'm not sure why you think that distinction relevant. The offence is committed if it is "with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked."
'Bodyguard' is a strawman and you know it. As you note, their duties include policing speaker's corner.
No it's not a strawman (and I don't "know" it), it's a genuine question. Stop reading "arguments" into my post that aren't there. What actions should the police take to prevent this happening again that don't affect the rights of people who loudly disagree with her views?
Of course it's a strawman - 'bodyguard' has a number of implications beyond 'policing speaker's corner', none of which apply.
I don't know what she was saying to upset the crowd and neither do you. If she was saying that Muslims are all going to hell because of what's in the Qu'ran then I imagine some of them would get pretty upset. But I don't know. If it was just because of what she was wearing then that's obviously wrong.
For our purposes - at least the interesting side of this, I think - we can assume she says things that get Muslims very upset, things that we wouldn't say, yet are within the law to say.
Context is everything. "String her up" from a relatively jovial crowd, no problem, clearly not a real threat and nobody is likely to think that it was. Rather different if the mood is angry. The end of the clause specifies "or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked". 'That person' could be either the target or another person, e.g. the police. So "String her up" followed by affirmation from others in an angry crowd could well be viewed as provoking the likelihood of violence, in context.
You've got to admit it's something of a strawman when you diminish "verbal threat of violence" to "says something out of line". Legally, there is a clear definition of the former. I'm using that term deliberately to identify the action that's unacceptable (with no implication that any are guilty of it, just with the background that we know the police thought there was a threat).
I'm sure you're determined to find a strawman but by "out of line" I mean "something the police should act on". Is that okay?
Clearly they didn't remove the speaker as she was present when the assault occurred. Presumably taking her to hospital following her injury took precedence over her right to be in Hyde Park at the time. I'm not sure she was "removed".
I'm pretty sure they're keeping a watchful eye on the crowd already. But it may send out a message that the police and establishment are there for that particular crowd rather than to watch out for lawbreakers (whether it impinges upon the crowd's rights or not). Hopefully the police didn't think violence was equally likely when she returned to Hyde Park following the incident or if they did, they took appropriate non-invasive measures.
It wouldn't actually send that message though, if done properly. I'd say instead that it may be spun as that, but in itself that's no reason not to act against any individuals in the crowd identified as breaking the law. The alternative is not to act, which absolutely does set a clear and troubling precedent.
I agree that it should be done properly - indeed, I think that's been my argument from the beginning - but the narrative from Tash and her supporters seems to be that the police don't seem interested in acting and are complicit in allowing "Sharia law into the UK via the back door". I'm very sceptical that that's the case from their responses so far.
Yes.
I agree. I'd actually just recently indicated as much.
I gather that this refers to another occasion altogether, and from what I can tell observing the convoluted back-and-forth that followed your remarks, the circumstances of this "failing" aren't understood well enough for it to be deemed as such. Please advise if I'm mistaken.
If this is in response to me then I'd like to say that this is no doubt the case but wanted to know how police should distinguish true threats from non threats and protect against them without affecting the rights of the rest of the crowd. It seems to me to be a fine line to walk until those threatening people make themselves known like the guy with the knife did.
I only know it wasn't me because the text wasn't a brilliant tawny. Someone made the apparent suggestion that the demeanor of the crowd makes the difference, and I disagree.
Good. It wasn't me that said the mood of the crowd determines context and I absolutely concur that hyperbole should be protected.
I'm also sceptical that's the case in any such broad sense, but also it doesn't appear that the police come out looking great from their handling of these protests so far. My summary would be that however obnoxious she is, she has a right to speak, and the consequences of speaking should not include threats of violence.
I'm aware of that, which is why I quoted the part where you mentioned consequences from non-state actors.
Referring to the video linked from the article as "arrested". It's chaos, and no clear threats on that video. The police found reason to take one guy away to speak to (at ~1:40), not clear why, or what if anything happened to him. Overall they don't appear to have the situation under control, and it is fairly clear that they chose to arrest her simply to get her out of there (in the time of the video she doesn't appear to do anything to prompt the arrest, and if there was reason to arrest her at the start why wait). As I said, I'd say that's a failing. There may be understandable reasons for that, but it's still a failing in my opinion.
That was me, btw, and was about context being taken into account. I also gave a link to what the law says, and said that it's up to the police to decide. I didn't mean to imply it was always going to be an easy decision.
I don't think you'll find anyone here who disagrees with that last part but can't help feeling that the poilice are damned if they crack down too hard and damned if they're not hard enough on the crowd. Nevertheless for someone to be injured is a police failing and I hope they review this situation and find a way to protect the public better next time, including those who are determined to stick their heads in the lion's jaws to prove a point, no matter how justified.
I don't know whether it's the police's job to protect free speech. I thought their job was to uphold the law. If anything they protect the speaker rather than the speech.
Well sure, if you want to be pedantic, protect the speaker's ability to speak. I was just trying to be brief. Same outcome.
I've acknowledged more than once that it's not a 'free speech violation'. I think I've amply explained my thoughts on what it is already, so won't bore you again.
