The eyes of the world were focused on the Chinese regime in August, known for suppressing dissent and curbing free speech. A Firm investigation concudes that we shouldn't take our own freedom for granted.

A comic incident occurred during Peter Dow‘s protest against the Queen’s visit to Edinburgh last year.  The republican campaigner may not share the majority view, but we do ostensibly live in a free society, tolerant of all opinions, from the mainstream to the slightly less so.  It is this amiable fiction that was punctured comically as Dow, bedecked in custom pseudo-military tunic and holding a placard aloft was pulled aside by Lothian and Borders’ finest boys in blue, escorted off the Royal Mile, and deposited in a makeshift holding pen in Holyrood Park, out of sight and sound of the world and disturbingly, chillingly displayed to public ridicule. He bore the indignity stoically proving a far more powerful point about the extent of our freedom to think and act than may have been intended by the police who hemmed him in.  Perhaps some speech isn’t free after all.

The degree to which the police will act to defend the greater public interest, and protect us not only from burglars and violent criminals, but also from assaults on our rights and freedoms was exposed earlier in the summer, when the Sunday Herald reported that police in Glasgow ordered protesters demonstrating against the scientology movement to take down placards which described them as a cult. The pernicious influence of the scientology movement has been well documented, and public concern about its opaque tactics would appear to be well founded and justified. For the police to take such a partisan step as to restrict the demonstration in this fashion would render the notion of peaceful protest not only a farcical fiction, but would signal the first descent into a police state where only ‘approved’ demonstration is permitted. Peter Dow and the anti-scientologists will tell you that quietly, surreptitiously and without greater public awareness, we have reached that point already.  

“Progress down the Canongate was too slow and not to the police's liking and the police insisted that I take a route behind the parliament to the designated demonstration area, marked out like a sheep pen with portable crowd control barriers, hundreds of metres from the parliament and pretty much out of sight, sound and mind of the crowds presumably swept up by the official ceremony and entertainments for the rest of the day,” Dow said on his website after the event.

“Ignoring any protests was the whole oppressive point of the royalist, fascist police state insisting that protestors such as myself were kept far enough away so that we could not be heard or placards read.”

We are all aware that any public demonstration or protest ought to be carried out lawfully and peacefully. As Peter Dow found out, sometimes that isn’t quite good enough. The question that the Firm wanted to know the answer to in the aftermath of the Sunday Herald allegations was:- were the police protecting the Scientologists at the expense of the public right to demonstrate; were they making subjective decisions about what type of peaceful demonstration was to be allowed?

Marching, demonstrations and public protesting is part of our collective social history, and naturally, demonstrations will not find universal support. Given the long established principle of peaceful protest, it would be instructive to know what guidance is given to officers regarding the removal of banners, which in some instances can be provocative, if not inflammatory. In the case of a non violent protest, are individual officers being tasked with the suppression of certain selected demonstrations that could be counter-argued as constituting only legitimate expression, far less provocative than the banging of  drums and playing of flutes, for instance?

Following the arrest of a 15 year old in London in a similar demonstration against the scientology movement, the English newspapers reported that senior figures in the Metropolitan Police had accepted gifts from the Scientology organisation in the UK, and suggested that the group exercised an influence on the policing decisions evidenced at that London demonstration. This suggests that the availability of freedom of expression may be dependent upon the closeness of the affiliation to the powers that be. Strathclyde Police claim otherwise.

“‘From a policing point of view a balance has to be struck between the right to assemble and hold a meeting and other persons' rights to go about their business or demonstrate without being obstructed or hindered. The level of discretion exercised will be dependent on the circumstances of each case,” they told the Firm, repeating an earlier statement they had previously released to the Herald.

“There has been no directive to officers of Strathclyde Police to remove or seize items with the word ‘Cult’, thereon, officers attending such an incident must use their discretion and if they feel that an offence has been committed act accordingly” they added.

It would not be an exaggeration to point out that Strathclyde Police displayed some reluctance to engage with the questions the Firm put to them on this subject.  The force’s ‘corporate communications’ team, manned by junior rank police officers, insist that all queries be addressed to them, and the Firm was told that our queries would not be out to the Chief Constable to whom they were addressed. This, we were told, “should not be construed as a refusal to comment.”

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that if rights are not exercised, they disappear. Use it or lose it, essentially.  London’s Westminster has as a result become more or less a dissent free zone, preserving an illusion of acceptance and pleasure with the Government there.  In Beijing in August, the IOC publicly condemned the rough handling of ITV journalist John Ray, who was covering the unfurling of a ‘Free Tibet’ banner near the iconic Olympic stadium. Great ire was expressed at his plight, yet little was heard of the eight individuals later deported for making the protest.  If the word ‘Cult’ has indeed become similarly non grata in the UK, the stance of our police has shifted perceptibly in a discouraging direction.  Their response to further probing was to question the accuracy of the Sunday Herald’s coverage.

“It must first be stated that the reporting in the article does not accurately reflect the situation or response by this force,” Strathclyde Police told the Firm.

“On the day of the demonstration a call was received in respect of a disturbance.  Officers attended and advice was given to all parties, no arrests were made.”

“No directive has been given to officers to seize items with the word 'cult' included. The senior officer at an incident will make any decisions required in respect of the conduct of protestors and any action that is appropriate under common law or legislative provision.”

And the propriety of the relationship alleged in the London press between the scientology movement and the police?

“In terms of the 'relationship' between Strathclyde Police and the scientology organisation I can only state that there is no relationship.  Any issues, incidents or other matters involving the organisation or individual members would therefore be addressed in the same manner that any other group or person would expect from Strathclyde Police,” they told us.

On the same day Peter Dow was escorted off the Royal Mile, a burning jeep was driven into Glasgow airport. US news websites reported a Scottish connection to the near-forgotten London jeep attack at the Tiger Tiger nightspot the evening before, a connection that Strathclyde police failed to disclose to the Scotsman newspaper when they were directly asked to, some sixteen preventable hours before the airport attack.  Given that the newspaper could have alerted the public to the intelligence that was freely given to US news media, one wonders if this particular form of violent protest was being sufficiently prioritised, or whether soft targets make for simpler solutions.