Guerrilla Nature

16th December 2021

Dear (insert name of intended recipient here),

This message is intended to express sincere reservations about several aspects of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

The fashion in which this bill seems to have been hushed through, under seemingly spurious auspices, demonstrates a disconcerting disregard for the principles of the democratic rights of the people on whom the terms are most likely to be imposed.

One wonders if those who voted in favour of the PCSC Bill have read it, or whether they truly comprehended the impact that these terms could potentially have on the rights for members of our communities to express their respective and collective opinions as freely as would be the case in a society truly deserving of description as democratic.

It seems from the reports online that current legislation is already being used to criminalise some protestors. This already seems heavy-handed, given that they are expressing understandable concern about our damagingly indulgent and wasteful practices, which are widely and reasonably regarded as contributing to interactions with the environment that have already done enormous harm and will continue to do so unless checked by regulation through legislation.

As for this government’s approach to dealing with peaceful protest, surely arresting attendees, processing them through the judicial system, then imprisoning them is counterproductive anyway. The costs of doing all of that will increase if these new powers are brought in and even greater numbers of citizens are accused of taking action that has been deemed “dangerous and disruptive” but is really the electorate’s only recourse when so many of its members feel marginalised or misrepresented by the elected leaders. Exerting the powers proposed in the PCSC Bill could increase not only the financial cost of dealing with this situation, it could also catalyse community tension and sap already overstretched resources in the emergency and rehabilitative services.

Although the whole Bill seems an unnecessary detraction of energy away from actually doing something to address humanity’s harmful habits, or even discussing more proportionate ways to deal with protestors, it only seems reasonable to provide at least one specific example of what some residents find so alarming as regards the potential restriction of their liberties. Clauses 55 and 56 of the Bill cite what might potentially be characteristics of any gathering, using vague language such as “annoyance,” “impact” or “noise.” It seems that the Bill seeks to treat allegations of these vaguely termed behaviours as grounds for criminal conviction with no further justification or explanation.

In particular, clauses 55(4) and 56(6) give the Home Secretary uninhibited provision to decide what constitutes “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation…” or “…to the life of the community” under the Public Order Act without proper observation of the usually appropriate parliamentary processes. Once it is passed, the Bill leaves the proverbial door open for the Home Secretary’s powers to be expanded, inviting the potential for misuse of those powers, perhaps through the targeting of whichever protests oppose the agenda of the party to which they will inevitably be somewhat compelled to placate. Not so long ago, the Home Secretary expressed personal dissatisfaction about protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter each of which appear to have been a significant influence on the proposition, wording and intended imposition of the PCSC Bill, as one deduces might be Insulate Britain.

In conclusion, the language used in the Bill seems to strongly suggest an intention to inhibit explicitly nonviolent dissent, regardless of how necessary or justifiable the dissenting voices might be, through suppression and dereliction of the people’s right to free speech and collective self-expression. Furthermore, it seems highly likely that the criminalisation of citizens for peaceful protest will engender not only greater financial and social pressures, but also deprive those who took an oath to fight crime of the requisite resources for administering the more serious issues that they themselves might have had in mind when they enrolled with the constabulary.

Do we really feel that it’s best to direct all that energy towards the persecution of the burgeoning community of devotees who can see that we are leading ourselves down decidedly dangerous paths of division and destruction? I for one do not and neither do a great number of those I consider to be conscientious beings.

If you intend act for the good of the people, please prevent the aggressive, regressive, repressive measures recommended in this Bill from being approved and thereby becoming an Act that could contribute to setting the stage for a terribly tragic act in the tale of this country.

Yours faithfully/sincerely (delete and sign below as appropriate),

(insert name of sender here, sign above as appropriate)

Above: the template for a letter which was sent out for other rebels to adjust according to their preference, if they so chose, before submitting to the appropriate email addresses in support of the campaign to oppose the P.C.S.C. Bill.

Below: other content relating to the campaign to oppose the P.C.S.C. Bill.

Above: content related to the P.C.S.C. Bill.

Below: back to Letters.