British protester still camps out despite new law to remove him

LONDON -- It is just over four years since Brian Haw began camping on the sidewalk across the street from Parliament to protest government policies in Iraq.

In that time, his single placard has blossomed into several dozen banners, sculptures and photographic displays that stretch about 20 yards across the green at Parliament Square.

Initially, his protest was directed at the impact of U.N. economic sanctions, imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, on the children of Iraq. After the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, which Prime Minister Tony Blair's government supported, it became, to use Haw's preferred term, a protest for peace.

Haw, a 56-year-old former carpenter, may seem the very embodiment of British freedom of speech to the tourists who photograph him. But some lawmakers viewed it differently, complaining in particular that his use of a bullhorn to get his views across was distracting them from their work.

So they designed a law to remove him.

The law requires anyone wishing to demonstrate within roughly a half-mile radius of Parliament to seek written permission from the police at least six days in advance (24 hours in exceptional cases), effectively banning spontaneous protests. Organizers of an unapproved protest face up to 51 weeks in prison and a fine of up to the equivalent of $4,500.

But the lawyers who drafted the legislation neglected to make it retroactive to cover already existing protests, so Haw remains the only individual exempt from the new police powers.

Indeed the law inspired a renewed burst of bullhorn activity as other people gather now to protest the restrictions on their right to protest.

"Parliament makes itself look utterly ridiculous when it claims to be the mother of parliaments and the cradle of democracy and yet tries to ban protests like Brian's," said Jeremy Corbyn, a legislator from Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party, who opposed the new law. "I think it's a question of some people being embarrassed about having this beautiful building and this beautiful square with Brian there, reminding them about their decision to vote for war."

John Bercow, a Conservative Party legislator, argued in favor of the measure, saying, "There is a difference between free speech and a licensed, permanent cacophony of a destructive character."

That the lawmakers missed their target gives little pleasure to Haw. "It's not about the messenger, it's about the message," he said in an interview.

Copyright C 2005 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.