This Bill effectively bans protests, persecutes Gypsies and gives a maximum 10 year sentence for putting someone at risk of being caused “serious annoyance”

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is before Parliament now, contains provisions which are inimical to democracy and should be opposed by all means possible. If it becomes law, it will effectively ban meaningful peaceful protests, target the way of life of one group, Gypsies, Roma and Travellers (GRT), and create a new offence which carries a maximum ten-year sentence, including for putting someone at risk of being caused “serious annoyance”.

The Bill has led to a number of protests already; protests for the right to protest. There are set to be nationwide protests on this Saturday of the Easter weekend.

The right to protest is a fundamental part of a democratic society. It is recognised as such by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention is separate to the EU and is incorporated into UK law. Passing this Bill would breach Article 11 and would mark the UK as an international pariah.

The GRT communities’ right to follow their traditional way of life and move from place to place is currently protected under the law, including Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

However, Clauses 61 to 63 of the Bill contains measures which are blatantly discriminatory against GRT communities. For years, councils have failed to provide enough legal sites for the GRT communities. Consequently, they have had to stop in unauthorised places. Whereas currently such trespass is a civil matter, the Bill criminalises it and gives the authorities draconian powers to imprison and to confiscate caravans, which are, of course, peoples’ homes.

Romany Gypsies have been in Britain since at least 1515. The Bill is the most serious threat to their way of life here for 500 years. 

Clauses 54 to 58 of the Bill relate to protests (of more than one person). They effectively ban protests. They do so by giving the police and the Home Secretary new powers which give them the ability to ban protests on grounds which are drafted so widely that they could apply to any meaningful protest.

The only kind of protests which are likely to be allowed to go ahead are those where the authorities support the aims of the protest.

Under the current law, the police can ban or impose conditions on a protest if they reasonably believe that the protest may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.

But under the Bill, the grounds for the police to ban or impose conditions are dramatically widened so that they include, among other things, the noise made by a protest. It would be sufficient under the Bill to ban a protest if the noise generated by the protest “may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity” and “that impact may be significant”.

In practice, the Bill would allow the police to ban any protest which generates noise, which is to say, basically any protest.

As the Good Law Project has noted, “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that an attack on the making of noise is a disguised attack on the very nature of the right to protest.”

The Bill also gives unfettered power to the Home Secretary, currently Priti Patel, to define the meaning of certain key definitions. She could do this, after the Bill becomes law, by ministerial regulation, with minimal parliamentary oversight. That in itself is highly disturbing.

Clause 59 creates a new criminal offence. Among other provisions, it provides up to ten years imprisonment for causing someone to suffer “serious annoyance” or even for putting someone at risk of suffering “serious annoyance”. One likely purpose of this oppressive provision is to scare people away from joining protests.

Clause 60 is concerned with stopping annoying one-person protests. It is rumoured that it is intended to stop one man in particular from protesting – Steve Bray, the indefatigable anti-Brexit campaigner, who is now targeting Tory corruption.

It is a dark time for our country that this Bill could be brought forward and comfortably pass its first parliamentary hurdle. It is lamentable that our mainstream media have not kept the British public properly informed as to the deeply obnoxious contents of the Bill. 

The blatant discrimination against GRT communities is sickening. Targeting minorities is a typical move by repressive regimes in hard economic times. It serves to distract and to divide and rule.

The effective ban on protests is a clear stepping-stone away from democracy to Fascism.  This is made even clearer given the context. The Johnson Government have shown contempt for the Rule of Law time and time again. Here are just three examples. They unlawfully suspended Parliament; they legislated to break the Withdrawal Agreement in contravention of international law; and they have legislated to allow Ministers and officials in quangos – with no judicial oversight - to license murder, torture or rape by people working under cover.

How the Mainstream Media Manufactures Consent in a Democracy

Nobody can obtain first-hand all the information they need to be properly informed in a democracy. Most people obtain their information from the mainstream media: the newspapers, the broadcasters and their online presences. The role of social media – to be looked at in another piece - is also undoubtedly increasingly important.

The mainstream media can not only effectively decide what people think on certain issues (especially if they have no other source of information) but it also influences which issues people think about.

A properly functioning democracy needs a vigilant and courageous mainstream media prepared to challenge those who exercise power.

But what if there are strong forces operating on the mainstream media which mean that – despite its claims of independence and the absence of overt government control - the news it produces is almost invariably biased in favour of the rich and powerful in and out of government? 

That is the argument of a book published in 1988, by two American academics, Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky. The book is called Manufacturing Consent. 

The authors’ theory does not depend on powerful people conspiring. It is not a “conspiracy theory”. It is more like a “free market analysis”. The authors argue that there are forces, akin to economic forces, which result in an end product, namely news which is, overwhelmingly, helpful to the rich and powerful. The authors call these forces “filters” and identify five filters, outlined at the end of this piece.

According to Herman & Chomsky, there is a “guided market system” as governments, owners of large companies, media owners and executives, public relation companies and others take steps to shape the news.

Of course, the media is not a monolith. Sometimes the government and other elites will be attacked but these attacks will not go to the fundamental issues underpinning their power. So, there may be an outcry in the media about a particular billionaire’s tax-cheating but there will not be a proper campaign highlighting the systemic reasons why the very rich pay so little tax.

There are many ways bias can be present, and it is often difficult to spot. One of the most powerful means of bias is simply to omit a story completely or to omit important facts. Another way is in the framing of a story: “this is good/bad/sad/no-one’s fault”. Or by not giving any context at all. Or by the way stories are selected. Or by repetition of essentially the same story over and over. Or by choice of words – the enemy is “cowardly, untrustworthy”, our leader is “determined, brave”. Or by placement – front page or top of the bulletin or buried? Or by choice of expert or think-tank to comment. Or by emphasis, nuance and tone. Or by humanising some victims and not others. Or by giving repeated, emotional and prominent coverage to one story. Or by giving no sustained coverage and downplaying another story. Or by many other ways.

Author Michael Parenti points out, “[Sometimes the media is] dedicated to the greying of reality, blurring popular grievances and social inequities. In this muted media reality, those who raise their voices too strongly against social and class injustices can be made to sound…shrill.”

In relation to individual journalists, Herman & Chomsky argue that their bias is overwhelmingly subconscious. It is easy for journalists to convince themselves that they operate “objectively”.

Only journalists who are likely to produce what the organisation requires are employed in the first place and then they will quickly learn the information they need to get on. When a journalist says that no one tells them what to say, it is usually true. Herman & Chomsky remark that “Censorship is largely self-censorship by reporters and commentators.”

Those who do not internalise what is appropriate and act accordingly, will be regarded as “irresponsible” and are unlikely to last long. 

In 1996, Chomsky was interviewed by Andrew Marr, the current leading UK political interviewer. Marr asked how Chomsky could know that he, Marr, was self-censoring. Chomsky replied, “I am sure you are not self-censoring. I am sure you believe everything you say. I am saying that if you believed something different, you would not be sitting where you are.”

Herman & Chomsky go to great lengths to prove systemic media bias. Most of Manufacturing Consent consists of detailed accounts of notable events from the previous decade and comparing them with the coverage in the leading American mainstream media. 

It is not possible to do anything like Herman & Chomsky’s detailed analysis here. However, consider, for example, the issue of poverty in a rich country like the UK. Millions of people are living in poverty in the UK. Most of the population are not aware of the scale, reality or causes of this poverty: the poor are out of sight, out of mind. The mainstream media rarely covers the issue and never with proper prominence. There is bias by omission.

Here are Herman & Chomsky’s “five filters”. 

1. Ownership

2. Advertising

3. Reliance on information

4. Flak

5. Anti-communism (needs updating for 2021)

Ownership

Herman & Chomsky analysed media ownership in the US in 1988. The main media outlets were controlled either by wealthy corporations or by exceptionally rich individuals or families. 

The position is similar in the UK now. Rupert Murdoch was an influential media figure in the US in 1988 and is the most influential media boss in the UK in 2021.

George Orwell, writing in 1937, was typically to the point, “[Most of] the British press … is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics.”

The BBC is the dominant provider of news in the UK and it is publicly owned. It is in a different category to other news outlet. However, the BBC is dependent on the government of the day for its future income and that government has power over the appointment of most people in charge of the BBC. 

If a news outlet is owned by a very rich corporation or individual, or is susceptible to pressure from a government, people working there are likely to be mindful, at the very least, to avoid or downplay certain subjects that they think would upset the owners or the government. 

Advertisers

The great majority of media outlets makes a profit not from people paying for their product but through money paid by advertisers (an exception is the BBC). This fact gives advertisers huge power over media outlets. 

A well-known British journalist in the last century, Hannen Swaffer, said “Freedom of the press in Britain means freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers don't object to.”

In 2015, Peter Oborne, the highly respected Chief Political Commentator at the Daily Telegraph, resigned in protest at the way that the paper’s coverage of global banking had been distorted because HSBC was a major advertiser.

Many advertisers, for example those working for oil companies, car companies, or banks funding the fossil fuel industry, do not want the media to talk about the climate crisis. It is observable that the media downplays this subject.

Reliance on information

Many journalists find it difficult – or impossible – to do their job without a good relationship with a particular powerful institution they are reporting on, be that a government department, a local council, a large corporation. They need a reliable flow of “news”, in the form of press releases and “off the record” briefings. 

It is not easy, therefore, for a media outlet, let alone an individual journalist, to call out the same institution for lying or corruption. Nor is it easy to give significant coverage to sources hostile to the institution. 

Flak

“Flak” means negative responses to media output. It comes in many forms including emails, letters, phone calls, petitions, complaints to politicians or libel threats.

Flak may be the spontaneous response of an individual. However, it can also be the result of an organised campaign.

Powerful people and organisations can produce huge amounts of flak. It can be very effective in making a media outlet change its coverage.

Anticommunism

When Herman & Chomsky were writing in 1988, it was, in their words, “a cultural milieu in which anti-Communism is the dominant religion” and people were “paralysed by the fear of being tarred with charges of infidelity to the national religion”.

In 2021, anti-Communism is no longer a potent force as a result of the end of the Cold War. 

There are a number of beliefs in 2021 which may approach a “national religion” and which support elite values, such as the belief in the superiority of “Western values”. Those who dare to oppose them are liable to be demonised as unpatriotic or worse – a highly effective way to ensure self-censorship.

…..

Herman and Chomsky wrote, “raw material passes through the five filters to produce “only cleansed residue fit to print”.”  

Printing (or broadcasting) this “cleansed residue” day after day manufactures consent for the economic, social and political dominance of elite groups and, therefore, undermines democracy.