I question the proposition that the freedom to protest is absolute. If by protesting the rights of others are impacted, the right to protest must be a balance with the right of the public to go about their lives unimpeded.
That the right to protest should have a higher priority than the rights of those impacted is important. How much higher is the question.
For example - would public opinion support the following protests, or should the police stand idly by, or would most public opinion be outraged that the police did nothing about:
- anti abortion protests outside an abortion clinic
- protesting the right to smoke cigarettes outside a cancer ward
- advertising (or selling) bacon butties outside a synagogue on the sabbath
- protesting the elimination of LGBT rights in favour of heterosexuality
Given the size of the coronation event, and the consequences of any disruption (reputation, violence, enjoyment by the majority etc) I believe the police right to use their judgement and act in anticipation as they did, rather than wait until unacceptable protests were evident.
Whether disruption would have happened is a judgement - but it is clear that their actions eliminated the risk.
I suspect if I looked back at earlier threads on the stop oil protests, most on this forum would have been frothing out the mouth at the dilatory and inadequate police response.
Just to be clear - I broadly support a monarchy, accept that others may have different views, and felt the whole build up and event overblown. The tedium of it all overcame me so went out and did something else.
|
