Hello, my name's Miss Ikomi.

I'm a teacher from London, and I'm going to be taking you through today's lesson.

Let's get started.

Today's lesson is called "Should protesters ever break the law?" It is part of the unit "Why do we need the right to protest in a democracy?" By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to explain the context in which a protest might break a law and discuss whether breaking the law during protest is ever justified.

As some of the things we might be speaking about today could be considered sensitive, we're going to run through some ground rules.

You must listen to others.

It's okay to disagree with each other, but we should listen properly before making assumptions or deciding how to respond.

When disagreeing, challenge the statement, not the person.

We must also respect privacy.

We can discuss examples, but please do not use names or descriptions that identify anyone, including yourself.

No judgement.

We can explore beliefs and misunderstandings about a topic without fear of being judged, and we can choose the level of participation.

Everyone has the right to choose not to answer a question or join in discussion.

We never put anyone on the spot.

The key words that are going to come up today are as follows: The law.

These are the rules usually made by parliament that are used to order the way in which society behaves.

Protest.

This is a public demonstration or action expressing disapproval or objection to a policy, decision, or situation.

They're often aimed at raising awareness or demanding change.

And lastly, disorder.

This is disruptive or violent behaviour.

Keep an eye out for these as we go through today's lesson.

First, we're going to think about what the law say about protests.

Two Oak Academy pupils are discussing an important issue.

Let's see what they have to say.

Jacob says, "The law should always be obeyed.

Citizens should never break the law." Andeep has said, "I disagree.

Sometimes, citizens must follow their conscience and break the law for a good reason.

The law can't always be right." What do you think about this issue? Everyone has the right to protest and to organise protests.

This right is protected.

The European Convention of Human Rights is a treaty created by the Council of Europe to protect people's rights and freedoms. All 46 countries in the Council of Europe follow this treaty.

The two articles that outline this right are Article 11, which says, everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association with others.

Article 10 says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

Sometimes we call that freedom of speech.

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the rights that were set out in the European Convention of Human Rights and bring it into British law.

All the public authorities such as the government, the NHS, schools and the police have to follow the Human Rights Act and make sure that they are operating in a way that respects people's human rights, including the right to protest.

This law means that police have to respect your rights.

They must support protests that are being organised, and you can bring a claim to the court if your rights are not being upheld.

True or false? The ECHR is UK law.

Pause your video and choose your answer now.

The correct answer is false.

Let's have a think about why.

The European Convention on Human Rights is not UK law, so therefore, the Human Rights Act was passed to make the articles law in the UK.

So the Human Rights Act brought lots of these articles into our local law.

Despite having these rights, Article 10 and 11 are not absolute right, they are qualified.

This means that they can be restricted legally in some circumstances.

Some of these circumstances include in the interest of national or public safety, to prevent disorder or crime, or to protect health or morals.

Any limits that are placed on these rights, however, have to be proportionate.

That means that they can't be too strict or too tough, particularly when we're thinking about restricting protests as we are today.

Sam's going to give us an example of when rights have been restricted previously.

"During the 2010 student protests against tuition fee increases, some protesters turned violent.

This led to some property damage.

The police had to impose restrictions and use crowd control to prevent any further disorder.

The actions were necessary to maintain public safety, but this had to be proportionate, ensuring that people still have the right to protest peacefully and that was respected." In 2022, the government introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Act.

This new law allows senior police officers to place conditions on protests.

So some of those conditions might include the start and end times for protests.

These have to be agreed.

Stopping some people from taking part in protests, or limiting the protest or assembly if it's going to be disruptive.

It allows the police to limit protests if there might be serious disorder, if there might be serious damage to property, if there might be lots of noise that disrupts people's lives, or there might be serious disruption to ordinary life in other ways.

Let's check what we've done so far.

Which of the following might be limited by police under their powers? A, a peaceful protest outside of Downing Street by a group of 100 people, B, a candlelit vigil held in a local park to honour and remember a victim of crime, or C, a peaceful protest, which plans to block a major road in Birmingham.

Pause your video and choose your answer now.

The correct answer is C.

This is because that could disrupt ordinary life.

Let's put this into practise.

I have some statements below.

I would like you to decide whether you think these statements are true or false.

If they're true, I'd like you to write true.

If it's false, I'd like you to rewrite it correctly.

The statements I'd like you to do this for are: Everyone has the right to protest, this right is not protected by law.

The European Convention on Human Rights applies only to the United Kingdom.

Article 11 of the ECHR gives people the right to peacefully assemble and the right to join others in protest.

The police are allowed to restrict protests for any reason, without considering whether the restriction is fair.

And last, the right to protest can only be restricted in extreme cases, such as national security threats, but not for reasons like public safety or preventing disorder.

Pause your video and have a go at this task now.

I asked you to decide whether some of these statements were true or false.

Let's have a look at the answers.

The first one, everyone has the right to protest, this right is not protected by law, is false.

Rewriting it, we would say that everyone has the right to protest and this right is protected by law, including the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.

Next, we were thinking about the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether it applies only to the United Kingdom.

This is also false.

The European Convention on Human Rights applies to all 46 countries in the Council of Europe, not just the UK.

The next one is true.

Next, we were thinking about the police and whether they're allowed to restrict protests for any reason, without considering whether this is fair.

This is false.

The police can restrict protests, but only for specific reasons such as public safety, preventing disorder, or protecting health and morals, but any restriction has to be proportionate.

Lastly, the right to protest can only be restricted in extreme cases such as national security threats, but not for reasons like public safety or preventing disorder.

This is also false.

The right to protest can be restricted for those reasons, public safety and preventing disorder, or protecting health and morals, not just in extreme cases like national security threats.

Well done if you've got some of those right.

Next, we're going to think about whether protests in the past have broken the law.

Jacob and Andeep are continuing their discussion.

Jacob says, "There's never been a protest that has broken the law that has succeeded." Andeep disagrees and said that, "Some groups have used disorder as tactic to achieve their aims. They were eventually successful." What do you think about this issue? There have actually been protests and groups that have tried to change the law that have used tactics that are illegal.

These tactics have led to consequences for the groups of people.

Some of those consequences have included up to six months in prison, fines of up to 2,500 pounds.

If the protest leads to harm of other people, then the consequences can be even greater than that.

One example of this happening is the Suffragists and the Suffragettes movements.

They were two groups that were fighting for female suffrage, the right for women to vote.

The Suffragists took a more peaceful approach, whereas the Suffragettes were known for more radical tactics, some of which were illegal.

The Suffragettes were founded in 1903, and between 1903 and 1914, the tactics became more radical and more militant.

Some of the tactics that they were using included breaking windows, setting fire to post boxes, setting fire to buildings, and disrupting meetings, whether they be public meetings or otherwise.

We can see an example here of a piece of artwork that was depicting a Suffragette breaking a window and underneath we can see a caption saying, "The Suffragettes get wilder daily and smash windows." Let's check what we've done so far.

Which Suffragette tactic broke the law? A, speaking to MPs about the changes they wanted, B, breaking windows on people's property, or C, asking their husbands to support them.

Pause the video and choose your answer now.

The correct answer is B.

Well done if you got that right.

A more recent example is Just Stop Oil.

This is a British environmental group that is aiming to stop fossil fuel extraction by 2030.

They've used a lot of methods which are disruptive, and this has attracted a lot of criticism from the public, and this has impacted their issue, particularly in some cases drawing attention away from the issue that they're trying to focus on.

A tactic that is being used by the group is to cover famous buildings, monuments and paintings, such as Stonehenge and Van Gogh's "Sunflowers", with orange powder paint or soup in order to raise awareness for the climate crisis.

You can see a picture of this on the slide, so orange paint was sprayed onto a building at University College London, which is a famous university in the centre of London.

Another tactic that you might have heard about on the news is slow walking or sitting in front of traffic.

This causes traffic disruption and lots of delays as people are unable to get through.

They have been criticised because it has caused delays for emergency vehicles.

For example, police or ambulances trying to get to an emergency site.

However, Just Stop Oil do have blue lights policy, which means that they allow emergency vehicles to come through.

Let's do another check.

Which Just Stop Oil tactic breaks the law? Is it, A, lobbying MPs by writing to them and sending them messages on social media, B, peacefully gathering outside parliament as part of a sit-in, or C, slow walking in front of traffic to cause widespread delays and disruption.

Pause your video and choose your answer.

The correct answer is C.

The first two are examples of methods that aren't against the law.

Well done if you've got that right.

Let's put this into practise.

I'd like you to describe a time when a protest has broken the law.

In your answer, I'd like you to consider what are the reasons for the actions that the protesters have taken? What impact did their actions have, and lastly, will that actions encourage people to support their cause? Pause your video and have a go at this now.

I asked you to describe a time when a protest has broken the law.

You might have included some of the following.

Just Stop Oil is a British environmental group that aims to stop fossil fuel extraction by 2030.

They use disruptive protest methods, such as spray painting famous buildings, monuments, and artworks.

Another method they use is slow walking or sitting in front of traffic; this causes traffic disruption and widespread delays.

These protest methods are used by JSO to raise urgent awareness about the climate crisis, but they also break the law and cause public backlash.

Vandalising landmarks, such as Stonehenge, or famous paintings like Van Gogh's "Sunflowers", risks damaging cultural heritage, which can alienate people, meaning make them not feel included, and these are the same people that might otherwise support the cause.

While some people might view their protest methods as necessary to push for urgent action, others see them as alienating, and therefore, counterproductive.

These tactics may bring short-term attention, but their long-term effect might be unclear, and ultimately, not give them the support that they need from the public.

Well done if you've concluded some of that in your answer.

Now we're going to think about if it's ever okay for protesters to break laws? Deliberative means to carefully consider and discuss a topic.

During a deliberative discussion, we take time to consider different viewpoints and weigh in all the relevant information.

We're going to think about planning a deliberative discussion to this question: Is it ever okay for protesters to break the law? I'm going to read an example of how a deliberative discussion might be structured.

We might start with a rationale.

This is a short statement to summarise your overall argument.

We then can use examples, maybe a statistic, a case study, or a story that supports your rationale.

Next, we analyse, this gives us a bit more explanation of your viewpoint to make it really clear why we think it, and lastly, we link.

This is coming back to our rationale and offers some closing words.

Let's check what we've done so far.

In a deliberative discussion, what do you call the further explanation of your viewpoint to make it clearer? Is it, A, analysis, B, a link or C, a rationale? Pause your video and choose your answer now.

The correct answer is A, analysis.

Well done if you got that right.

We are going to have a deliberative discussion based on the following question: should protesters ever break the law? When preparing for a debate, we have to consider the arguments that we might use, but then also think about the other side.

Jacob is offering us one viewpoint.

The Human Rights Act 1998 gives us the right to assemble and protest.

This is important in democracy because otherwise people would not be able to express their views.

This right is qualified.

This means that there are certain restrictions that can be imposed.

These restrictions should not stop us from protesting; they just make everyone feel safer.

Which side of the discussion do you think that Jacob's arguing for? Jacob, in this case, is arguing that protesters shouldn't break the law.

Let's see if we can think about what might be the arguments on the other side.

Andeep is saying, "The introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act has further limited people's ability to protest.

I think this has led to some unfair restrictions.

Our history shows us that sometimes breaking the law can help to achieve your aims when your cause is for a good reason, much like Suffragettes helping securing votes for women." Which side of the debate is Andeep on? Andeep is giving the other side, arguing that in some cases protesters should break the law and using an example from history.

Let's check what we've done so far.

What term explains that rights are not absolute and can be limited or restricted? Is it A, qualified, B, achievable, or C, failed? Pause your video and choose your answer now.

The correct answer is A, qualified.

Well done if you got that right.

Let's put this into practise.

I would like you to prepare for each element of a deliberative discussion on this question of whether protesters should ever break the law.

You will need to include a rationale, some examples, analysis, and finally, a link.

Pause your video and do this now.

I asked you to prepare for each element of a deliberative discussion.

You might have included some of the following ideas in your plan.

Your rationale might have been that some causes are justified, so therefore it would be acceptable to break the law.

For example, the Suffragettes used militant tactics to further their cause.

They found the peaceful method used by the Suffragists were not proving effective.

To analyse, we might have made a link to the Human Rights Act and how this allows us the freedom to protest, but there are qualifications on this which limit the right.

The government have introduced more laws for further restrictions, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act.

Therefore, some groups need to use tactics to make themselves heard or may feel that these restrictions go too far and are, therefore, unfair.

To link back, you might have shown that it is clearly acceptable to break the law because in a democracy we have the right to protest without restrictions or should.

Equally, some causes require us to break the law because the cause is just and the law is not.

This is seen in the example of the Suffragettes who wanted the right to vote.

This should be given to everyone in a democratic society.

Well done if you've included some of those points.

You might have planned for the other side of the argument.

For example, your rationale might have been that protesters should never break the law because laws are in place to maintain order and protect the rights of all individuals, including those who are protesting.

For example, the Just Stop Oil campaign has used disruptive tactics, such as spraying paint on famous buildings and blocking traffic.

Even though their cause is based on urgent need for climate action, their methods have led to significant public disruption.

This has also caused delays potentially for emergency services and potential damage to cultural heritage sites.

Although the Human Rights Act grants us the right to protest, it also allows for reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety, preventing disorder, and protecting people's rights.

Just Stop Oil's actions arguably exceed these limits.

The laws are in place to ensure that people can express their views without causing harm or endangering others.

Breaking those laws undermines this.

To link back, we might have said that this argument shows that protesters shouldn't break the law.

Laws exist to protect the rights of the individual, but also the safety of society.

Although it's important to protest, especially for causes like Just Stop Oil's, it's also important that it's done in a way that respects the law and doesn't harm or disrupt others.

Well done if you included points on either side of that debate.

Today, we have been considering, should protesters ever break the law? We have learned that everyone has the right to protest, and this right is protected by international and domestic law.

However, restrictions can be placed on protests, for example, to protect public safety and prevent crime or public disorder.

Individuals and organisations might use a range of different protest tactics to achieve those aims. Some examples of these tactics might break the law.

Some examples of groups that have broken the law include Suffragettes and Just Stop Oil, who have used tactics like vandalism.

Recent laws, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, aim to balance the right to protest with the need to prevent major disruption.

Managing this balance is essential for public safety.

Thank you for joining me in today's lesson.