The Moral and Legal Legitimacy of Protest 

The legal system has always been a mechanism for social progress, with legislation often reflecting shifting social values and shaping the evolving demand for social justice. Yet legal reform is rarely swift; due to the complexities of the legal system, repeated revisions are often required to ensure that the law functions as intended without clashing with current legislation. An individual challenging an unjust system is classed as irrational; a thousand people choosing to do the same constitutes a protest.

​

Protest, by definition, involves the gathering of individuals who share the same belief that change is necessary. There is a very fine line between harmony and discourse where protesting is concerned. For the UK, as outlined by the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) in Article 10, which allows for the freedom of expression and the right to exercise one's views. This is in combination with Article 11, which protects the freedom to peaceful assembly. These articles, which are incorporated into UK and international law, clearly indicate a right to protest, no matter who you are; these articles state that you can make your voice heard. However, issues arise as soon as violence occurs, and the concepts of passion and violence are usually intertwined

​

So the question must be asked: can protesting and civil disobedience be a mechanism for good? Well, the simple answer is yes, but as with anything, there's nuance. There are many examples when we look back on the past where we praise figures who are at the forefront of what were historically radical policies. Abraham Lincoln is a prime example. On the side of the Union, the Civil War was not about slavery and ending one of the most horrific practices in a nation that prided itself on freedom until 1863 and the Emancipation Proclamation. The Confederate States deemed the idea of abolishing slavery as radical and feared Lincoln because of it. However, now with the beauty of hindsight, we can clearly see that this was no radical policy and one which is now commonplace.

​

A great example of civil disobedience used for good is the Salt March of 1930. Led by one of the most renowned historical figures of the 20th century, Mahatma Gandhi, who led a movement that protested the oppressive British rule and laws on salt. He openly defied British law at the time, creating salt from salt water. He was even arrested without a trial. However, the salt march was in fact a minor issue isolated to much of the coast of India, but triggered a reinvigoration of the Indian people, catalyzing further protests on separate issues. It was this movement that paved the way for what was the Government of India Act of 1935, which gave India virtual independence.

​

This movement was the poster child for peaceful protest. It achieved action and united the people in a non-violent manner. It demonstrates that protest can achieve results without death and destruction. Gandhi took on a global superpower and, through a message that resonated with his people, managed to create a resolution. Not only did it resonate with his people to achieve his goal of an independent India, but resonated so strongly with the globe as a whole and continued to live on through other movements such as the American civil rights movement.

​

A peaceful approach does not come without disturbances, and while Gandhi succeeded and is hailed as a hero, only history can tell if others like him will be. At the forefront of modern-day activism are the British global environmentalists known as Extinction Rebellion. They aim to raise a sense of urgency about the impending disaster of climate change. This noble goal has been met with some opposition. Not due to their goal, but the action they take to achieve such a goal. Activists scaling the Eiffel Tower, blocking train lines, and blocking access to newspaper stands have called into question both the ethics and the level of disruption the group causes.

​

The root of protest has always been civil disobedience; however, the separation between the Salt March and the example given of groups like Extinction Rebellion is not of how important their goal is, but the level of disruption they cause for the average person. The salt marches were a renowned success as they gained the support of the average person. However, when someone from Extinction Rebellion throws themselves in front of a train track, it does not traumatise the major corporation; it traumatises the train driver, and that’s the person who is relatable to the average person. So, when we ask the question of whether protest is a mechanism for good? It can complicate the picture. Climate change is an important issue that must be addressed, but is traumatising a train driver the correct path? Will it help gain publicity? Sway the common person to see how pressing climate change is?

​

These pressing questions are at the forefront of the conversation surrounding the legal ethics of protest. Any individual who is fascinated with history will tell you that protest has been at the forefront of dismantling systemic injustice. So far, we’ve covered solely peaceful protests, but throughout history, peace has not always prevailed.

​

The Suffragettes' movement is a fascinating example throughout history. Solely looking at the methods, they were violent; they consistently battled with the police and set buildings on fire. They are the very definition of a violent protest. Yet, we look back on the movement positively because of their goal, and as their motto states, “Deeds, not words”. The effects of their protesting are still seen today, as without them, it's highly unlikely that women would have seen the social progression that these ladies laid the foundation for.

​

That is not to say that the methods the Suffragettes did not have their detractors. There are many historians who debate whether the Suffragettes helped or hindered the overall progression of women's rights. The elements of violence that the group showed fuelled rhetoric that they should not be entrusted with the noble right to vote and other social progressions they were demanding.

A clear takeaway from the Suffragettes that we can see is that though the measures they used gained attention, they also made it substantially easier to fuel the opposition. You ask the average person if they believe men and women should have equal rights, and more time than not, they will say they should. You ask the average person if they support the same cause if backed by violent measures, and you'll see more opposition.  

​

The legal stance here is a complicated one. Within the Salt March, Suffragettes and the Extreme modern protests have had several arrests. A responsibility of the law is to curb things like civil disobedience, as it fundamentally disrupts the peace that the law is constructed to protect. However, we have previously touched upon the fact that under the ECHR, people have a right to protest, but the policing of protests was strengthened under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022. The short of it is that if you cause a disruption to life within the location you are protesting, you could be subject to arrest.

​

There is substantial legal debate over protests. A particular case that I found interesting was DPP v Ziegler (2021), where protesters blocked a dual carriageway. They were initially acquitted of the charges against them. However, their acquittal was overturned and was eventually brought up at the level of the Supreme Court. The final verdict was that their actions were protected by articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. This was a major positive affirmation of protest law. It sets the precedents that a protest does not immediately become unlawful or lawful and that each case must be reviewed on its own merits.

​

Protesting clearly has its place within society. It has been at pretty much every major junction within history and has always catalysed change. Legally, the right to protest is protected and is something that the legal system views as a positive driving force for the type of change that the legal system believes it is important to protect. This doesn’t mean that protests are inherently good, nor does it mean that protests are inherently bad. If there is something that you feel strongly about, it is likely that others feel strongly about it too, and creating the positive change that you wish to see may be as simple as stepping up and deciding to enact.