Limits on public protests in world states

As the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) leadership is adamant that it would hold its founding day rally at Islamabad's F/9 Park on April 24, the sitting Pakistan government is not ready to allow the main opposition party's demand either--meaning thereby that horns are locked between the two sides yet again on the choice of a public gathering venue.

While the government has asserted that that no political party would be allowed to put the capital under siege, Imran Khan's PTI has vociferously claimed it was its constitutional right to hold a public gathering wherever it desired.

Research conducted by the "Jang Group and Geo Television Network" shows that although the right to freedom of assembly is guaranteed in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and appears in almost all democratic constitutions, many countries around world are rolling back traditional rights and revoking freedom of assembly.

In neighbouring India, Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 empowers a magistrate to prohibit an assembly of more than 10 persons in an area. 

According to sections 141-149 of the Indian Penal Code, the maximum punishment for engaging in rioting is rigorous imprisonment for three years and/or fine. Every member of an unlawful assembly can be held responsible for a crime committed by the group. Obstructing an officer trying to disperse an unlawful assembly may attract further punishment.

The section was used for the first time in 1861 by the ruling British Empire, and had thereafter, became an important tool to stop all nationalist protests during the Independence Movement. 

Most of us have read and heard about the April 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar, where at least 379 innocent and nonviolent protesters were shot dead by the British Indian Army on orders of Colonel Dyer. The civilians had assembled to participate in the annual Baisakhi (harvest festival of Punjab) celebrations—both a religious and cultural festival for the Punjabis. 

Coming from outside the city, they may have been unaware of the martial law that had been imposed. Independent sources had placed the number of dead at well over 1000.

However, its use in independent India remains controversial as little has changed. 

It is often used to prevent protests or demonstrations, even the law doesn't use the terms, though it does mention "riot."

The issue was further highlighted following the protests in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gang rape. A special executive magistrate had imposed prohibitory orders for up to six months around the capital's popular public protest location of India Gate in December 2012. 

In January 2013, the Delhi High Court had issued a notice to the capital's police in this context and had found the special executive magistrate's orders contrary to the fundamental rights of citizens.

Quite recently in February 2016, Section 144 was imposed in Haryana after the local Jaat Community had turned violent during its protests against India's caste quota system.

(References: The Economic Times, the Hindu and the Indian Express)

In London's 350-acre Hyde Park, the Speakers' Corner is a traditional site for public speeches and debates since the mid 1800's when protests and demonstrations were first staged here.

So, it is a misconception that the whole of London's Hyde Park is a site for free speech. 

The Speakers' Corner is located on the north-east edge of the 480-year old Hyde Park, near the Marble Arch and Oxford Street.

In 1872, an act of parliament set aside this part of Hyde Park for public speaking. Even today, on a Sunday morning, it's not unusual to find crowds gathering at Speakers' Corner to listen to enthusiasts expounding their views. Anyone can turn up unannounced to speak on any subject, as long as the police consider their speeches lawful.

Speakers' Corner was the focus of a huge rally in February 2003 against military action in Iraq. The number of people who attended was estimated at between 750,000 and two million. 

Speakers here may talk on any subject, as long as the police consider their speeches lawful, although this right is not restricted to Speakers' Corner only.

The London police does intervene at times, but only when they receive a complaint.

Interestingly, the toilets around this area were closed a couple of years ago, so the nearest public toilet is now 500 meters away. 

Historically there were a number of other areas designated as Speakers' Corners in other parks in London.

These include: The Lincoln's Inn Fields Finsbury Park, Clapham Common, the Kennington Park and Victoria Park etc.

Other Speaker’s Corners around the world:

In Australia, there is a Speakers' Corner in Sydney where 34 hectares of open space called "The Domain" allows speakers to talk every Sunday afternoon from 2 pm until 5 pm.

Melbourne and Brisbane have Speakers' Corners too.

The Canadian city of Regina also houses a Speakers' Corner and so does the famous Italian city of Pisa, which is opened for the public to speak on Sundays (9 to 11 am and 4 to 6 pm). 

In Malaysia, he first Speakers' Square was established in Penang Island in May 2010. It is opened for the public to speak on Wednesday and Sunday (6.00 pm to 10.00 pm). Here, all speakers are prohibited from using loudspeakers, megaphone and any other public address system. However, the State Government and the Municipal Council of Penang Island is not responsible for any prosecution or legal action by the Police or civil proceedings

Amsterdam's Ooster Park has a similar facility. However, the speakers here are filmed with a hand-held camera.

Then there is a Speakers' Corner in Auckland’s Albert Park in New Zealand.

The Speakers' Corner in Singapore was opened on 1 September 2000, to allow Singapore citizens to speak freely. Speakers and organisers here are exempted from the need to obtain a police permit as long as they meet the terms and conditions of use.

An area was set up in Bangkok in the 1930s, and quickly became known as Hyde Park, to enable freedom of speech and the airing of political views in Thailand.

In the US city of Cleveland, the north-west quadrant of Public Square has been dedicated to free speech too.

It is imperative to note that during March 2007, the London police were given powers to seize trespassers at 16 sites ranging from royal palaces to the official residences of politicians.

In its March 24, 2007 edition, "The Guardian" had stated: "At present officers are not allowed to arrest a trespasser as long as they agree to be escorted from the site, even if they refuse to give their names or say why they are there. But after several high-profile intrusions - notably the gate crashing of Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle by a comedian dressed as Osama bin Laden - and the increased threat from terrorism, new laws have been brought in to give police more powers at designated "protected sites." If someone trespasses on the designated sites they risk being jailed for up to six months and fined up to £5,000."

The British newspaper had held: "So far places designated have been military bases and nuclear power stations. But yesterday the Home Office announced a new list of sites that, unless MPs raise objections, will be designated from June 2007. As well as Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, scene of a protest by 'Fathers 4 Justice' in 2004, will be afforded the extra protection. Sandringham, the Queen's country retreat, and Prince Charles' home at Highgrove in Gloucestershire are also on the list. The Palace of Westminster, another target of Fathers 4 Justice, is included as are 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street, the last of which now houses the prime minister's press office. The PM's country retreat, Chequers in Buckinghamshire, is also being designated. The Ministry of Defence and the headquarters of MI5 and MI6 feature, as do government electronic listening posts. The Home Office will ask sites that are protected to make sure there are clear signs setting out where people can go."

The newspaper had gone on to write: "The new offence of trespass on a protected site was suggested in 2003 after the "comedy terrorist" Aaron Barschak got into Windsor Castle. The suggestion was supported by another report the following year after tabloid reporter Ryan Parry got a job as a royal footman and claimed he got close enough to the Queen to be able to poison her. Police could then not arrest a person simply for crossing the threshold of a royal palace or politician's country retreat if they had committed no other offence and agreed to be escorted off the premises. The new law, introduced in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and amended by the Terrorism Act 2006, was designed to close this loophole and act as a deterrent to publicity stunts. Human rights groups fear the powers could hinder peaceful protest."

The key sites included: Buckingham Palace, London, St James's Palace, London, Windsor Castle, Berkshire, Sandringham House, Norfolk, Highgrove House, Gloucestershire, Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House, London, Numbers10, 11, 12 Downing Street, London, 70 Whitehall (Cabinet Office), Chequers, Buckinghamshire, Ministry of Defence, Whitehall and Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ), Cheltenham.

A May 4, 2015 report of Al-Jazeera Television had stated: " On March 26 (2015), without much fanfare or attention from US media, the Spanish government ended freedom of assembly. In the face of popular opposition (80 percent of Spaniards oppose it), the upper house passed the Citizens’ Security Law. Under the provision, which goes into effect on July 1, police will have the discretionary ability to hand out fines up to $650,000 to unauthorised demonstrators who protest near a transport hub or nuclear power plant. They will be allowed to issue fines of up to $30,000 for taking pictures of police during protest, failing to show police ID or just gathering in an unauthorised way near government buildings. The law doesn’t technically outlaw protest, but it’s hard to see what difference that makes in practice."

The report had asserted: "Spain is only the latest “democracy” to consign freedom of assembly to the dustbin. While earlier eras of protest and riot sometimes wrested concessions from the state, today the government’s default response is to implement increasingly draconian laws against the public exercise of democracy. It raises the question: How many rights must be abrogated before a liberal democracy becomes a police state? 

In Quebec, where student strikes against austerity once again disrupt civil society, marches are being declared illegal before they've even begun. At the height of the last wave of student strikes in 2012, the Quebec legislature passed Bill 78, which made pickets and unauthorised gatherings of over 50 people illegal and punished violations with fines of up to $5,000 for individuals and $125,000 for organisations."

The "Al-Jazeera" had continued saying: " Last October (2014), a law was passed in Turkey allowing police to search demonstrators and their homes without warrants or even grounds for suspicion, allowing for a much looser definition of and harsher punishment for resisting arrest and making covering one’s face at a protest or shouting particular slogans considered crimes punishable by years in prison. This February (2015) in London police forced climate protest organisers to hire private security for marshalling a rally, making protesting not a free public right but an expensive private expense."

According to Al-Jazeera, France had banned Palestine solidarity demonstrations and Australia had given powers to the police to bar protesters from appearing in public spaces for a year, even if they worked or lived there.

In Egypt, according to national newspapers like the "Egypt Independent" and the "Aswat Masriya," the November 2013 law requires three days notification before protesting.

The country's Interior Ministry has the right to cancel, postpone or move the protest if it determines that protesters will breach the law.

In Russia, during 1993, citizens were the constitutional right to gather peacefully, without weapons, and to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations and marches etc.

The 2004 Russian "Federal Law on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Pickets" requires notification to the government for any public event, except for a rally or picketing held by a single participant. 

The promoter of the event must notify the government in writing not later than 10 days prior to holding the public event. 

Amendments to the Russian Law on Demonstrations, signed by President Medvedev in December 2010, had prohibited people charged with minor administrative offences from organising or attending rallies.

Remember, Russian leader Vladimir Putin had once viewed: "If you get permission, you go and march. If you don't - you have no right to. Go without permission, and you will be hit on the head with batons. That's all there is to it." 

The "Al-Jazeera" Television report had maintained: "Cells designed for one or two people were crammed with dozens, and prisoners haven’t been allowed phone calls, blankets, pillows or any contact with lawyers or anyone from the outside world. In 2012, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, also known as H.R. 347, had made protesting near government buildings, political conventions or global summits — except in heavily policed and encaged “free speech zones” — a federal crime. After the Black Lives Matter movement subsided in New York City, Police Commissioner William Bratton demanded a new force of 1,000 police, armed with machine guns, specifically to monitor protests and sought to turn resisting arrest into a felony."

In Germany, freedom of assembly is a constitutional, i.e., basic right of the Germans Since the first all-German Constitution of 1848 

However, freedom of assembly is mostly a political right which is articulated primarily in political demonstrations. 

In United States, the Constitution's First Amendment specifically allows peaceful demonstrations and the freedom of assembly as part of a measure to facilitate the redress of such grievances. 

But, in the American state of Baltimore, many protestors were held without charges in 2015.

Research further shows that the Government in Saudi Arabia had warned in early March 2011 that that it would enforce the law banning public demonstrations.

According to the Saudi Interior Ministry, demonstrations are prohibited because they contradict the principles of Islamic law and the values and norms of the Saudi society, besides leading to public disorder, wreak havoc that results in bloodshed. 

During the 2011 Arab Spring, Tunisia had extended the ban on public gathering of more than three people.

In Myanmar (Burma), law prohibits public gatherings through multiple layers of regulation. Article 144 of the country's Penal Code bans groups of five people gathering, walking, marching in procession, chanting slogans, delivering speeches, agitating or creating disturbances on the streets.

In June 2010, law in Myanmar had prohibited the act of marching to the gathering point, holding flags or marching and chanting slogans in procession.

The Government in Myanmar had used official media channels to warn that anyone who disrupted the country's election could face up to 20 years in prison. 

In South Korea, two human rights defenders were arrested a few years ago and convicted for peacefully protesting without police permission.

Prior to the protest, they had submitted the required notification, but were turned down five times by police who said the protests could become violent. The protests took place anyway and the two organizers were charged with “hosting an illegal protest.” 

The Venezuelan "Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Protests" states that written notice to hold public meetings is required with at least 24 hours’ advance notice.

The request must include the objective; and authorities must agree to the proposed time and place of the public meeting or demonstration.

Article 51of the afore-cited Venezuelan "Law authorises the government to dissolve assemblies that disrupt normal party or government functions or the flow of transit, or which incite disruptions.

Meanwhile, Articles 49 and 50 of the Venezuelan Law provide for criminal penalties – up to 30 days of detention – for organizers of assemblies held in violation of law. Speakers at unlawful assemblies face the same penalty. Individuals engaged in assemblies that disrupt normal party or government functions or the flow of transit are also subject to 15-30 days of detention.

In Malaysia, it is illegal for students to join political parties or take part in political campaigns or protests.

Students who do so risk expulsion and fines. Under the 1971 Universities Act, Malaysian students are barred from expressing support, sympathy or opposition to any political party or trade union, domestic or foreign. 

In Hungary, the 2011 gay pride parade, organized by the Rainbow Mission Foundation, was banned by the Hungarian police. Interestingly, the Foundation had received permission, but had requested an extension of the parade route so as to appear before the Parliament building, in order to voice opposition to the newly proposed constitution and the new media law. Consequently, permission was withdrawn altogether.

The Chinese Government implements a policy called “stability maintenance,” which seeks to limit the planning and preparation of public gatherings and protests. 

(References: The International Federation for Human Rights, the Human Rights Watch, the Associated Press, Amnesty International, United States Department of State, 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the BBC News, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

In Thailand, during August 2015, country's first ever law to specifically deal with public gatherings had come into force, laying down stricter rules for such political activity. 

The new Thai law had imposed high penalties of up to 10-year jail terms for severe offences such as causing disturbance or disruption to public services.

The law passed by the military-installed National Legislative Assembly in July 2015 requires any person who wants to call for a public rally to seek permission from authorities at least 24 hours before the planned activity in a notification which must state the purposes, date, duration and venue of the assembly.

Authorities, including the police chief of the venue of the planned rally, can prohibit the activity if they view it as against the law, or if rally organisers do not rectify measures that authorities have demanded.

However, rally organisers who do not agree with such orders can appeal to the immediate superior of the authorities, whose decision is regarded as final under the Public Assembly Act.

Rally organisers could still appeal such a decision through the Administrative Court.

If the organisers of a rally were not able to notify the authorities 24 hours before the planned event, they could seek leniency from a senior police officer in charge of the area.

The Act says that any public assembly that does not comply with its provisions is deemed as "unlawful public assembly", and the authorities can demand its cancellation within a specified period of time.

It also says the organisers of a rally must not use loud speakers between midnight and 6.00 am. In addition, marching or relocation of the rally from 6.00 pm until 6.00 am of the following morning is also prohibited, unless ordered or sanctioned by the authorities.

Rallies have to be called off within the time period specified by the organizers, who can also seek to extend the duration by notifying the authorities 24 hours before the end of such period.

Authorities can also seek a court order to enforce a demand to the organisers to call off an assembly deemed unlawful, in case the latter refuse to heed their initial orders. The law requires the court to consider such request immediately.

If participants of a rally refuse to end the rally within the time period as specified by the court, the rally site and its surroundings will then be declared as "controlled areas." 

The Thai Prime Minister, who is the caretaker of this Act, can also assign other officials to oversee the ending of the rally.

If there are still rally participants in the controlled areas after the specified period of time for them to leave, the Act now regards them as "offenders," who could face arrest by the authorities and a jail term of up to three years. The authorities can now also search, seize or dismantle any property at the rally site.

Similar treatment will be applied at a rally where the participants turn to violence that could become harmful 

Rallies in Bangkok may not be held within 150 meters from any palace of the royal family, or within the compound of the parliament, the Government House or courts.

If necessitated by public security and public order, the national police chief can bar any rally within 50 meters from the compound of the parliament, Government House or courts, taking into consideration the number of rally participants and its circumstances.

The Act also prohibits any rally from obstructing the entrance or exit of, or disturb the work or the use of services of state agencies, airports, ports, train stations, public transport stations, hospitals, educational institutions, religious places, embassies, consulates or international organisation offices.

Generally, penalty for rally organisers or participants who do not comply with the requirement for permissions under the Act is a maximum imprisonment of six months and/or a amount of up to 10,000 Baht fine.

Disobeying orders to leave a rally site could meet the offender up to a year in prison and/or a 20,000 Baht fine.

Furthermore, any person who is not an authorised official under the Act and who carries any weapon into a rally site could face a jail term of up to three years. If the weapon is a gun or explosive, the penalty is raised to up to five years.

And if organisers or rally participants cause any public transport system or public utilities to break down temporarily or permanently, the organisers could face an imprisonment of as high as 10 years.