Protecting the Flag

Is burning the Flag a desecration that should be punished? or the ultimate exercise of freedom of expression? In the United States a number of people believe that the constitution should be amended to allow the banning of flag burning.

The Congressional Research Service have produced a research paper on flag burning. It outlines the position the Courts have taken, and the attempts to ban this controversial activity.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/95-709_20090107.pdf

Another interesting (private) resource is available at http://www.esquilax.com/flag/

Constitutional Reform

Pre-legislative scrutiny has become an increasingly important part of Parliament's work. In the last session one piece of proposed legislation considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses was the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. (Report at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtconren/166/166.pdf).

There was no mention in the Queen's Speech about a full bill being introduced this session, but the Queen did say "My Government will continue to take forward proposals on constitutional renewal, including strengthening the role of Parliament and other measures." Baroness Royall, Leader of the House of Lords told peers in the subsequent debate "We will continue to work on measures aimed at improving our democracy and our constitution."


The draft bill had six parts, each dealing with issues raised in the Government's Governance of Britain programme. Key matters include abolishing the provisions covered by sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005 concerning demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament; The role of the Attorney General; the removal of the involvement of the Lord Chancellor in lower level judicial appointments; parliamentary consideration of treaties before ratification; and the placing of the Civil Service on a statutory basis - with codes of conduct.

Allowable Protest

This afternoon I attended a very interesting session of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. They are conducting an inquiry into "Policing and Protest".


(further details are available at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/policing_and_protest.cfm). While I was there the three witnesses were Richard North (Social Affairs Unit - http://www.richarddnorth.com/journalism/power/protest.htm); Andrew Gay (Huntingdon Life Sciences - a company targeted by animal rights activists) and Jeremy Dear of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ).

Very different views were put forward about allowing protests. It's worth watching the evidence session. Richard North was very critical of protestors and argued that we should be less tolerant of protest, and he argued in written evidence that "representative democracy is itself an important example of human rights at work and that much protest attempts to trump it". Andrew Gay spoke of the campaign against his company. Jeremy Dear argued for the right to protest - and warned of increasing interference with journalists covering demonstrations. Some penetrating questions were posed by the renowned human rights lawyer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill (http://biographies.parliament.uk/parliament/default.asp?id=26915).

As I write this the committee is due to conclude its hearing. It may be some time (perhaps by tomorrow), that the hearing will be available in the archive of http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Archive.aspx (in (1) enter joint committee human rights in (2) tick only the 'Committees' box; in (3) put 21.10.08 in both boxes.). I recommend watching it.