Why the insidious erosion of our Human Rights cannot be understood without considering Britain’s imperial history
“Who elected him?”
At an event in Oxford marking the proclamation of King Charles III, Symon Hill asked aloud, “Who elected him?” Since the inception of monarchy, there have been people who have expounded cynicism towards the idea of “Divine Right”, and contested a constitution which bestows power upon a person based on “blood-line superiority”.
Hill was then, very swiftly, detained. His offense: behaving in a way which could cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. Monarchical legitimacy is not to be queried.
This is just one example of a series of dubious arrests made against people publicly demonstrating anti-monarchy sentiments.
In Edinburgh, as Prince Andrew walked behind the Queen’s coffin making its way down the Royal Mile, a man from the crowd shouted, “Andrew, you’re a sick man”. This was in reference to the ongoing FBI investigation of Prince Andrew’s alleged links to a paedophilic-sex trafficking ring. The man was hastily and forcefully arrested.
Also in Edinburgh, a woman has been charged with breach of peace, having held up a sign saying, “Fuck Imperialism, Abolish Monarchy”. She is due to appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court at a later date. Outside Westminster, a barrister held a blank piece of paper, and was threatened with arrest by police if he were to write on the paper anything that could be construed as anti-monarchy.
These examples demonstrate a punitive assault on our freedom of speech and criminalising our right to protest. They showcase an insidious attack against human rights[1] and reveal the perverse agenda of the British Establishment to silence those who challenge the dominant narrative.
But more so than this, these arrests are situated within a national debate on how Britain and its history should be presented, whose stories are to be told, and what histories are to be omitted. They reveal deep-rooted insecurity that lies at the heart of the British Establishment. A fear that the narrative of Britain as a bastion of freedom, equality, and democracy will be proved a fantasy. A fear of a national realisation that the oppressive systems of imperialism, colonialism and Empire are causal to the persistent inequalities in the UK today. And they fear what this would mean for the social order.
This fear has been epitomized by the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
The reign of Queen Elizabeth II was inimitable. Throughout a tumultuous epoch in British history, tainted by violence, oppression, and social upheaval, Queen Elizabeth became an emblem of unconjecturable and omnipotent continuity, unity, and cohesion. She reigned with quietness and unobtrusiveness tinctured with orthodox femininity. She was an appurtenance of “British values”, presenting the institution of monarchy as epitomizing “sanctity” and “duty”, rather than corruption and elitism. As a result, her image reified the narrative of Britain as an auspicious bastion of freedom, equality, and tolerance.
But for those who lived under colonial rule, Queen Elizabeth II symbolises the colonial project and serves as a constant reminder of the complicity of Britain in the oppressions, displacements, and murders that occur globally today. Behind the veneer of sanctimonious values projected upon Queen Elizabeth II’s image, lies the true foundations of Britain: the systems of colonialism, imperialism, and Empire.
The death of Queen Elizabeth II has impelled a national realisation that the traditions and culture that premiered her reign are now moribund. What remains is a sense of dislocation, disunity and capriciousness.
Moreover, her death has also provided space to examine the causes of structural, historical, and contingent inequalities that persist in UK society today. No longer can the British Establishment hide behind a nationally idolised fetishization of Queen Elizabeth II.
Anti-monarchy protestors are causing “alarm and distress”. They are provoking trepidation amongst the British Establishment because the protestors recognise monarchy as an oppressive system that does not need to exist; they lay bare the coloniality and the relics of the Imperialist mindset in which the UK is ensnared; they probe a national imagining of the republican UK that breaches the demarcations of the elitist British system; they draw attention to how current systems cause oppression, inequality, and injustice; and they challenge the dominant narrative by publicly exposing the truth behind the supposed British values.
Britain is not a beacon of democracy. It does not suffuse with values of equality, respect, and tolerance. We have a Prime Minister who was elected by no more than 0.2% of the UK’s population[2] and who has openly expressed willingness to withdraw the UK from the European Convention of Human Rights if it impinges on her ability to pass reforms. Whilst the UK was upheaved by the destruction of the Covid-19 pandemic, we have seen the passing of punitive reforms which criminalise the ways of life of Gypsy and Roma Traveller communities, and encroach most devastatingly upon the rights of marginalised and oppressed groups[3].We have seen the UK Home Office introduce the immoral and unlawful detainment and deportation of refugees and people seeking asylum to camps in Rwanda. We have a policing institution that enjoys impunity from dismantling systems of racism, misogyny, and violence entrenched in its structure. We are experiencing a cost-of-living crisis in which gas prices and oil company profits are both exponentially growing, creating an ever-widening gulf of wealth inequalities in the UK, and where the government’s mitigation techniques include the advice to “buy a new kettle”, or “cuddle a pet” to keep warm and save money.
Given due attention, these protestors could catalyse a movement which overturns the entire social system in the UK.
So, the Establishment has turned to use scare tactics to discipline society and enforce conformity. By criminalising protest, people are deterred from contesting injustices. Prohibiting engagement with alternative views entrenches the current system and renders alternative systems implausible. These tactics keep society caged in the cast iron bars of the status quo.
But there is an irony here. When Symon Hill shouted into the crowd, “Who voted for him?”, he would have only been heard by a small number of people that were around him. And had the police not then arrested Hill, his comment would have probably been forgotten. As it stands, the police have amplified Hill’s voice to reach an audience of thousands. The Establishment’s scare tactics have backfired.
And now we can all be asking: who elected King Charles III; what does our monarchy represent; what does the UK stand for; and is it time for change?
Getty Images
[1]Freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are covered under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, police can arrest a person for publicly saying or displaying abusive words that would likely cause harassment, alarm, or distress. Counter-minding this is the Human Right to free speech, which includes speech that others may find shocking, offensive, unwelcome, distasteful or provocative.
[2] Following the resignation of Boris Johnson, the election for the new head of state was conducted internally, amongst members of the Conservative Party. The number of Conservative Party members in the UK is classified information, but it is estimated to be around 170,000, which equates to about 0.2% of the UK’s population. That is, an estimated 0.2% of the UK’s population was enfranchised in the most recent election for the UK’s new leader.
[3] Under the leadership of Boris Johnson, The Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Court Act was passed, which amongst other things: criminalises trespass, which criminalises the way of life of Gypsy and Traveller communities; criminalises protests that “cause serious disruption”; and extended the stop and search powers of the police. Moreover, the Public Order Bill is currently being proposed to establish a ban on the protest tactic of ‘locking on’; extend stop and search; criminalise any protest that interferes with key national infrastructure; introduce protest banning orders. Whilst currently shelved, Johnson’s government also tried to pass a Bill of Rights, to replace the Human Rights act and actively seeks to weaken the rights of already marginalised groups.
Commentaires