Every person has a right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and, for the purpose of this article, this right includes the right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or to belong to political parties, trade unions or other associations for the protection of the interests of that person and not to be compelled to belong to any association.
In the National Assembly this week, we were treated to a shenanigan that showed just how the current leadership of the majority party, the SPPF, have lost its bearing and have yet to be properly educated on the Constitution of our country and the universal principles of universal declaration rights and freedoms.
On Wednesday night, the public was treated to a spectacle on television starring Vice-president Joseph Belmont and Mrs Marie-Louise Potter, the SPPF-appointed Leader of Government Business, inside the debating chamber of the National Assembly. Mrs Potter, it appears, had tabled a question asking the government to give an opinion as opposed to details of the cost of policing political activities in the country.
The question underlined an ulterior motive by the leadership of the SPPF. In our view, it was a disingenuous attempt to give the impression, false as it is, that there is a financial cost to the country every time its citizen decides to exercise his or her right to assemble peacefully, and that this cost is becoming onerous. This line of approach raises the presumption that in the mind of the leadership of the SPPF there is a need to curb this financial cost and the way to do so is to restrict the right of the citizen to assemble freely.
First, Mrs Potter’s title in the National Assembly, which goes with a hefty salary to match that of the Leader of the Opposition, is unconstitutional, unlike that of the latter, which is provided for by the Constitution. Her position is an oddity that needs to be corrected. Under our Constitution, the Government – meaning the Executive, has no business in the National Assembly, which exists separately. That is why if any member is appointed a Minister his or her seat becomes automatically vacant. Hence, Mrs Potters title is in effect a constitutional equivalent of an oxymoron.
Secondly, Mrs Potter is part of the Executive, since she is appointed by it, sand hence must know what transpires inside the government. Is she in the Assembly to ask loaded questions and to cause political mischief? Don’t the rules of the National Assembly outlaw connivance between a government Minister and a member during questions and answers sessions, precisely to prevent it being manipulated by the Executive? It appears from the shenanigan, that is exactly what she has been “inserted unconstitutionally” in the National Assembly to do and that question was part of her brief.
Thirdly, the Police, as the institution, one of which’s functions is to maintain law and order, is not at liberty to decide what is law and what is disorder. The Constitution is the law and the Constitution explicitly says, “Every person has a right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association”. Therefore, the police (by extension the Executive or the Government) must do everything in its power, pay any price – financial or otherwise, to protect that right. Otherwise, it will be incumbent on the individual to do so by himself or herself, and that would be a recipe for chaos. Moreover, when the Constitution speaks of the freedom of Assembly it recognises that this must only mean the freedom to assemble in a public place, hence the responsibility of the police. (It is this underlying un-stated principle, which the existing Public Order Act violates by giving the police an unconstitutional right of veto on the holding of a peaceful assembly.)
There is also an underlying presumption behind Mrs Potter’s question that is disturbing. Gleaning form the prepared text that Vice-president Belmont so unashamedly accepted to read rather than to deliver, it appears that the leadership of the SPPF was trying to give the false impression that the exercise of ones right to assemble peacefully was synonymous with public disorder. Moreover, that this only applies to those gatherings organised by political parties other than the SPPF.
How hypocritical of Mrs Potter and the SPPF leadership to try to pretend that policing the right of Assembly by the citizens of a free and democratic
It would be interesting perhaps for a member of the opposition to ask Mr Belmont to put a financial cost to the police and other security agencies operation over two days to protect this foreign dignitary and to compare that to the financial cost the police incurred to protect supporters of the SNP during the candle light vigil march. Unlike for the SNP march, protecting Mr Hu Jintao entailed a cost, which neither Mrs Potter nor the police can quantify in monetary terms, and that was the disruptions and restrictions on the freedom of movement imposed on all of us during the two days he was our government’s honoured guest.
We understand why Mrs Potter particularly and the SPPF leadership in general, do not understand what fundamental rights are, especially the freedoms that are inherent in the exercise of those rights. After all, Mrs Potter has been schooled in Communist Cuba where fundamental rights are not respected nor recognised by the dictatorship imposed by Fidel Castro on the Cuban People over five decades. As for the SPPF leadership, it is understandable since their party was born of political violence and that they denied the people of
Lastly, it is the role of Joseph Belmont in that shenanigan which is pathetic.
It is worth reminding Mrs Potter, however, as well as the SPPF leadership that there is no sacrifice too great to defend ones fundamental rights and that many citizens of this country are prepared to make that sacrifice.