I disagree with the anti-immigration demonstrators, but I disagree even more strongly with any authoritarian attempt to stop them demonstrating
The newspapers are reporting today that the police have not issued a permit for the anti-immigration demonstration tomorrow, and for any other such demonstration scheduled for 4 August.
Is this what they heard from the police? If so, the police are either lying outright, deliberately seeking to mislead, or are themselves unfamiliar with the law (which should not surprise us).
Article 3 of the Public Meetings Ordinance, Chapter 68 of the Laws of Malta, refers.
No police permit, nor a permit from any other authority, is required to hold a demonstration or protest march. Can the reasons why be more obvious? This is not the Soviet Union or China. Malta is not North Korea. We do not require permission from the authorities so as to assemble and demonstrate.
For heaven’s sake, does something so basic have to be explained? If demonstrations can only take place at the pleasure of the police or the government, the scope for abuse is enormous. The police, or the government, can simply deny permission to demonstrate.
We have the right to freedom of assembly. That right is inalienable. Nobody can come along and tell us, “You’re not allowed to assemble and demonstrate.” That is precisely why there IS NO SUCH THING AS A POLICE PERMIT FOR A DEMONSTRATION.
Those planning a demonstration have just one requirement where the police are concerned: to advise them of their intentions so that the police commissioner can make the appropriate arrangements for traffic and for police presence at the demonstration in case of trouble.
In other words, the police ARE TOLD that there is going to be a demonstration. They cannot stop the demonstration, they have no right of veto over it, and they do not issue permits for demos. Their job is to make sure things don’t go wrong when the demonstration happens.
I really cannot believe the police and others are repeating that old chestnut that a police permit is required for a demonstration. Can the people repeating this not see what a gross violation of our rights that would be? It is not as though we didn’t have this amply illustrated by the infamous case of Tal-Barrani, when attempts were made to stop the Nationalist Party holding a mass meeting in Zejtun. There was a constitutional case about that, as I recall.
The anti-immigration demonstrators have a right to demonstrate. We have a right to object to their sentiments and their views, but we cannot and should not object to their right to demonstrate. It is a right we share.
If they are stopped on the grounds that we do not like their views about immigration, then an extension of the same reasoning would have it that homosexuals are not allowed to hold a Gay Pride march because so many people find that offensive.
We have to distinguish – and this is the sole remit of the police – between their Constitutionally-protected right to demonstrate and their obligation under the law not to carry racist placards, shout racist slogans or incite racial hatred.
It is astonishing that some people think it a good thing that the prime minister said the anti-immigration demonstration should not take place. Can he be more authoritarian than that? Who is he to say who may demonstrate and who may not, or for what purpose? It’s absolutely not his business and certainly not within his remit to decide these things.
What he should have said is this: “I disagree completely with their sentiments” – he would, of course, have been lying if he said this, given that he was the one who started it – “but they have every right to demonstrate, and so do those who object to their stance.”
25 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I suspect that there might be some who would have loved for the rally to take place.
They would have come out with tomorrows headlines.
‘Muscat has turned Malta in a Racist state’.
How nice it would have sounded and what a lot of rubbish would we have read in some of our papers and blogs.
They have been checkmated now they have to lump it. ( Of course I’don’t mean you Daphne, you would never stoop so low)
Muscat hasn’t turned Malta into a racist state yet, but he certainly has given hope and courage to Malta’s racists.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire
[Daphne – Well, actually, Beatrice Hall, synthesising Voltaire.]
Besides all the semantics of a demonstration against illegal or even the argument of the lawful right of having a demonstration or or not.
Or lawyers and writers against push-backs of illegal migrants or what have you, the question is what is being done about this large problem? In real and fair concrete terms that is fair for Maltese citizens and fair for illegal migrants.
Arguing amongst the citizenry is fine for a short time but the problem of illegal migration to Malta has to be solved in this century and not in the next.
A system for illegal migration is in place and works well although not to everyones wishes. Be honest, it is the colour of certain illegal migrants that bothers.
What exactly is going on here?
I think that rather than the police telling us that they did not issue a permit given that one is not necessary, they should reassure the public that if a demonstration is held, the police has the resources and the plans to keep law and order.
I hope that no one will hide behind the excuse that the activity was not licenced or not notified to the police should there be disorder as a consequence of the demonstration.
If they wish, the police can also tell us if they plan to have a stand where the Cops Caterers will be serving ice creams and cold drinks, but that’s besides the point here.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130713/local/pm-visits-ohloq-tbissima-marathon.477806
The hypocrisy of it all…he agrees with helping people in need, as long as they don’t set foot on our island.
One cannot have half of Africa or half of Russia or the Philippines on the tiny island looking for economic betterment with out a euro in their pocket and relying on charity and cannot go anywhere else to try their luck.
You have to admit that this a serious problem for all those involved and it needs a permanent and fair solution.
And so say all rational Maltese people, fortunately the majority of Maltese people.
Not only that but not letting them demonstrate will only make the situation worse. There’s noting worse that a extreme right winger that feels oppressed.
What you say is true, but I remember well a decade or so ago, when the police demanded I get a permit even from the local council just for setting up a stand to distribute leaflets in Valletta.
One other time, I was telephoned by the Police Commissioner himself and told to go to the General Headquarters for questioning just because I advertised on my personal website a demonstration that “had no permit”.
I can think of many words to describe the massive quandary Muscat has landed himself in, but it all boils down to one fundamental lacuna he’s got – total lack of foresight.
Sadly for the rest of us that is a key competency of a statesmen!
A spontaneous demonstration does not need a permit. A planned emonstration also does not require a permit but a notice of the demonstration must be given to the police. The police have the right to change the time date and place of a meeting.
These regulations may appear to violate the right to freedom of expression and assembly however I think they are justified on grounds of public order and security.
[Daphne – How is anything you said here different to what is said above, David? Incidentally, if a demonstration is spontaneous, then it’s spontaneous.]
Probably the police have not receved a notice a planned and therefore the protest advertised would be illegal. Probably the police are confusing a permit with the requirement of a notice.
[Daphne – The police do not make mistakes of that nature, David.]
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In Germany you do not require permission from the police to hold a demonstration either, as long as it is peaceful, without weapons and nobody is disguised.
However, you must advise the police that you intend to hold a demonstration. As long as you observe the rules, you cannot be stopped.
Well done, Daphne. The little shit is in a classic ‘Catch 22’.
There is a complete mix up with the police permit issued for political meetings in the run up to an election allocating sites for meetings intended to ensure that rival political parties do not hold simultaneous meeting on the same site with its attendant dangers.
The right to freedom of assembly excludes the need for any prior police permit before exercising that universal fundamental right. In fact the police should be present to ensure that the fundamental human right is not suppressed by others.
It is a shameful history of the MLP police that they were used at Tal-Barrani to obtain the opposite result by the active assistance the police gave to MLP criminals intent on preventing a NP political meeting approved by the law court.
Joseph Muscat is worried that this demonstration of open racism will put people off and make them realise how cynical and irresponsible he is.
He is therefore doing his utmost to stop the event and the police are obviously helping him. Same goes for TVM, incidentally.
Technically the police are right: they have not issued a permit. However, when they do not explain that no permit is needed, they are clearly trying to discourage would-be participants, in the hope that the demonstration will not take place.
Muscat just doesn’t seem to get it. With every step he takes and every word he utters, he shows an absolute disdain, or lack of knowledge of the concept of human rights.
I too agree that who ever wants to demonstrate their views in public, as long as it is free of violence, harmless and is civil, let them be.
Permit? What the hell does this mean? Are we going back to the 80s?
Governments should stand to be counted first and foremost in their own country and let us not let any authority suffocate the freedom of speech and public opinion’s expressions in a civilly held form. Mr Prime Minister, please note.
So that means tomorrow we’re off to Valletta.
Yeeeeaaaaaa
Isn’t there some law saying that it is illegal to form “part of a group of 10 or more people” or something? I believe it was once of the things you were charged with on being arrested during the schools’ protest in 1984.
[Daphne – “…with the intention to commit a crime.”]
“The two most important of all our institutions, namely, the freedom of the public press and the right of assembling in meetings for the purpose of public discussion. As long as they are preserved intact and as long as they are fearlessly and frequently employed, there will always be ample protection against those encroachments on the part of government which cannot be too jealously watched and which even the freest country is liable. To this may be added that these institutions posses other advantages of the highest order. By encouraging political discussion, they increase the amount of intellect brought to bear upon the political business of the country. They also increase the total strength of the nation, by causing large classes of men to exercise faculties that would otherwise lie dormant, but which by these means are quickened into activity and become available for the purposes of social interest.”
I have to thank the switchers for this time warp, are they grateful too?