Lesson video

Hello and welcome into today's lesson.

This is lesson five of six our penultimate lesson in this series.

Today, we're going to be looking at protesting and whether or not the law should ever be broken whilst you are protesting.

For today's lesson, you are going to need some equipment, You are going to need a pen and some paper and a ruler, and you are going to need that quiet working space.

Now before we start today's lesson, the lesson we're about to have contains references to protesting and potential lawbreaking, and for some people this may be a sensitive topic.

If that applies to you then you may want to do the rest of this lesson with a trusted adult nearby who can support you.

You can pause the video here to get you that equipment, and to get you that space if you are continuing with today's lesson.

Okay, so today's lesson, again is split into three parts.

We're going to look at what is our starting point.

So we'll examine your initial thoughts on the question, is it ever acceptable to break the law when protesting? Then we're going to have a look at bounds in the right to protest.

So we're going to examine where the line should be drawn between the freedom to protest and the rights of other citizens.

Then we're going to arrive at a conclusion at the end of the lesson where we look at your final opinion, and we'll look up how or if your opinion has changed throughout the lesson with an evaluative response.

So what I want you to think about is, what is your initial response to the question, should the law ever be broken by those taking part in protests? What I'd like you to do is draw a line horizontally across your page, or you can use the continuum that I have attached to the documents on this lesson.

So your line should look like that.

and at one end I want you to write strongly disagree, and at the opposite end, write strongly agree.

Now if you disagree with that statement, you are going to place a mark down the lower part of that towards the left hand side.

If you agree with that statement, you are going to to put your cross mark towards the agree side.

And if you are undecided, if you are 50 50, you're going to to put a mark in the middle.

So you're considering there, should the law ever be broken by those taking part.

So if you agree the law should be broken, you have the right hand side, if you disagree that the law should be broken, you're down the left hand side.

And if you're 50 50, you're in the middle.

What I want you to do is after you've put your X on the scale, I want you to explain your thoughts in response to the question.

So why have you put the cross where you've put it? and do you think that your view will change throughout the lesson today? So pause the video now to complete your task and then press resume once you are finished.

Okay, just to get us thinking about protesting again, what I've done is I've given you five statements here, and each of them contains reference to something that is incorrect.

So what I want you to do is within each box I would like you to correct the mistake and again, you can either rewrite the statements out of this as attached to the downloadable documents that are available with this lesson.

So pause the video here to complete that task and again, press resume once you are finished.

Okay, so it wasn't the Equality Act of 1998, it was the Human Rights Act of 1998, and that gives us the freedom to protest in the United Kingdom.

A candlelit vigil is a form of peaceful protesting not violent protesting.

It's not Article 21, it's Article 11 that gives us the specific freedom to protest.

The government cannot stop a protest just because it doesn't like it.

And your Human Rights do not give you the power to intentionally cause violence in a protest.

Okay so give yourself some ticks, so that you've got five out of five.

We'll now look at a practical example to see how this works in practise.

So I'm going to introduce you to Sam, and Sam wants to join a protest about issues in his local community.

Sam's really upset about a planned housing development to be built on the farmland next to his home.

So what I want you to do is draw a new debate line, and I want you to look at how far should Sam's right to protest, be balanced with making sure the public feels safe and protected.

So while some has a right to protest, all those around him also have rights and also have freedoms to be balanced.

We need to look at Sam's rights versus other citizens.

So while Sam has a right to protest, we need to balance that with all the citizens rights.

For example, what about the people who have the right to a family life? So the people who are potentially buying some of these properties that are about to be built, they have a right to a family life and a right to a home life.

And if Sam's protest goes ahead, this means that the potential hundreds of families are being denied access to purchasing a new home.

Also, while some might have the right to protest, it also needs to be balanced with the protection of individuals from harm or harassment.

So people who are arriving there to work, need to have their rights from being protected against harm or harassment from a pressure group or from people who are protesting, but Sam still does have that right to protest.

So I want you to just put there, how far do we balance the right to protest with all the citizens' rights? How far do we agree that it should be in favour of people who are protesting? and how far do you agree that it should be down with the public or individuals? So put a cross there, pause the video and now, complete that task and then press resume once you are finished.

We need to understand that if you break the law there are consequences for doing so.

Okay, so we're going to have a look at what those consequences are.

Now people sometimes choose to break the law whilst they protest, but that doesn't mean to say that they escape the consequences.

So whilst we have protection in law to protest, remember the law does not intentionally permit you to cause violence during that protest.

And if you are found to be going outside of your legal rights, there will be some consequences there for you.

Now protesters who break the law, they risk arrest and punishment if they are convicted of a crime.

Now Gandhi said when he was protesting, and although Gandhi used peaceful methods, he said at his trial, "I am here to submit cheerfully" "to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me," "for what in law is a deliberate crime" "and what appears to me" "to be the highest duty of a citizen." Now, Gandhi was blocking a highway, and whilst that is a crime, to block a highway from being used, Gandhi said that having this right to protest was the highest duty of a citizen.

Okay? However, what Hannah Arendt says is that, "The practise of violence," "like all action, changes the world," "but the most probable change" "is a more violent world." So she completely disagrees that violence is an option and again, if you are found to be committing a crime whilst you are protesting, you will have consequences and you may be convicted of a crime and face police action.

But does that mean that you should never make a stand? So we'll have a look at crossing the line.

So we need to know where the line is between protesting in a legal form and when that action becomes illegal.

Now if people use violence when they feel strong enough, society will simply just become more violent.

But that doesn't mean that you have to put up with terrible conditions forever.

If peaceful methods haven't brought a change, some people do turn to violence.

Now I want you to think about a time, or think about is there ever a time, where you may be able to justify illegal actions? Remember, there are still consequences for illegal activity.

But, I've given you an example here, during a protest people may trespass on somebody's property to cause disruption.

Should that be allowed? Should people be allowed on other people's land to make sure that their right to protest is going ahead? Or, does that cause potential problems? So I want you to think about a time, Is there ever, a time where you can justify somebody's actions? So I want you to put a new cross on your original timeline.

Do you think now should the law ever be broken by those taking part in protests? So your response may have moved up the line or down the line, or it may have stayed the same.

But just make sure you've marked your first response as your first response, and then your second response as your second response.

And look and see how it has changed, if it has changed.

Let me go back to visit Sam's protest now and look at the right to protest in more detail.

So remember Article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998, is closely linked with Article 10 for the freedom of expression and your right to protest applies to protest, marches, demonstrations, counter-demonstrations, press conferences, public and private meetings and more.

But remember, it does not permit you to intentionally use violence during your protest.

Now with Sam, because he wants to advocate his right to protest he has joined a protest campaign.

And he wants to make sure that his message is heard.

He has had two lawful protests gone unnoticed.

Now what Sam has decided to do, he has created signs to hang on public buildings, and on public motorways to bring attention to that campaign.

What I want you to do is now have a look at do you think that Sam's actions are covered under the Human Rights Act of 1998? So you can draw a new continuum and do you agree that Sam is acting within the Human Rights Act? Or do you disagree? So place a cross on that scale for me and then resume the video.

Sam's now gone on with his fellow protestors and they intend to camp outside an entrance to the proposed new development and their intention is to stop vehicles from entering.

Now he intends to bring banners and signs to highlight the campaign to passers by.

Again, what I want you to do is on your scale, mark now are Sam's new actions covered by the Human Rights Act? So you can label that as number two.

Again, you can pause the video here to complete that task and press resume once you are done.

Finally then, the next day the group find out that the local council are holding a planning meeting, which they intend to disrupt.

When Sam arrives, he's given spray paint and eggs by one of the organisers, but he's not sure what he should do with them.

What I want you to do right before we look at the continuum again is, what should Sam do to ensure that he does not break the law? So just write down what do you think Sam should do to make sure that he stays within his right to protest under Article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Finally then, are Sam's actions there covered under the Human Rights Act? Again, mark that down as number three on your scale.

Now Sam wants to join another protest about issues in his local community, and looking at the following forms of protest action, I want you to look up which would work for Sam and what do you feel would not be appropriate to use? So these are available on the downloadable document which is attached to today's lesson.

So you can print that off and have it at the side of you.

So perhaps you might want to highlight some key information.

The line you've got then is that he could sign a petition, which is a quick and easy way to sign your name on a document, and you can do this on the internet.

This way you can ensure that lots of people support you and you can then take that to the relevant people in charge.

You could have a boycott.

So if you don't agree with someone, don't give them the support or time or money.

So you could avoid companies who don't recruit fairly from all ethnic groups.

Or you could avoid a shop because they don't recycle plastic.

You could have a march or a protest and let the world know that there are lots of people who agree with the cause.

This is a more physical type of petition, but it could also make the authorities take notice.

In our second row then, we've got riots and riots are protests where anger and confrontation leads to people destroying buildings and businesses.

You then got vandalism, which identify key targets such as statues, offices, buildings and people attack them.

You've got civil disobedience, where people break the rules of law and they cause disruption, for example, blocking roads to ensure the police fill up police cells and clog up the courts to make sure that there is a point.

Then in our bottom row then, you've got political violence towards authorities.

So people who've set out on protests to deliberately use violence against the police and or the government.

In the middle, you've got sabotage and disruption.

So you've got stopping people from doing what you disagree with, for example, disrupting meetings.

And then finally you've got voting.

So once you're old enough to have a vote in an election.

So once you reach the age of 18, you could vote for a political party or a candidate, who supports the kind of causes that you are thinking are important to you and also your community.

So your task here is to use those nine forms of protesting and sort them into two columns.

One that Sam could use and one that Sam could avoid.

So which actions do you think Sam should take? Which ones do you think that Sam should avoid? and is Sam staying within the law if he uses all nine of them? So you can pause the video now to complete that task, press resume once you are finished.

Okay, hopefully you've got on the legal form of protesting that he could sign a petition, he could boycott, he could march and protest peacefully, and he could exercise his right to vote.

Actions that Sam should avoid are riots, vandalism, civil disobedience, political violence towards authorities and sabotage and disruption, as this could lead him and land him in trouble with authorities such as the police.

As we've said then it's really important that we balance our rights and whilst Article 11 protects our right to protest by holding meetings and demonstrations with other people, we also have some situations where the police can restrict your rights to freedom of assembly and association.

So, where there is an action that is lawful, necessary and proportionate, the authorities, for example, the police can stop a protest from going ahead, and these happen in four situations.

So where it's necessary or lawful or proportionate to protect national security or public safety they can stop a demonstration from going ahead.

Where it's proportionate, lawful and necessary to prevent disorder or crime, or to protect health or morals.

And then finally, where the protection of rights and the freedom of other people will be abused.

So whilst action is proportionate, when it's appropriate and no more necessary to address the issues concerned, then the authorities can decide whether a protest can go ahead or not.

But as you can see there, as we've said throughout this lesson, whilst people have the right to protest under Article 11, the police also have the right to protect people from crime and disorder and to protect people in issues of national security or public safety, but also making sure and balancing the rights of other people's rights as citizens in the United Kingdom.

So for the final time then, can you write down on your original continuum, should the law ever be broken by those taking part in protests? Do you agree that the law should be taken into their hands and perhaps be broken? Or do you disagree that the law should never be broken when taking part in a protest? And can you just write a short justification of what is your final opinion and has it changed throughout today's lesson? Okay, that is the end of our lesson today.

We've looked at three key elements.

We've looked at what is your starting point in relation to the question, was it ever okay to break the law when protesting? We've looked at people's rights and the balancing of rights when protesting, and then we've looked at Sam's scenario on whether or not he stayed within the law.

Before arriving at the end of the lesson we've had a justification there, whether or not your opinion has changed and what your final opinion is in relation to the question, should the law ever be broken when protesting? I'm really looking forward to seeing some of your work here.

So if you'd like to please ask your parent or carer to share your work on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter, tagging @OakNational and using the #LearnwithOak.

Before you leave today's lesson, can you please make sure that you complete the exit quiz just to consolidate all of the learning that we've done within today's lesson, just to make sure that you are secure with the knowledge that you have received today.

Join me again next time for our final lesson where we are looking at pressure groups.

But until then take care of yourselves and I'll see you again next time.