Tom Hickman, barrister, Blackstone Chambers
Olympic rights and wrongs
Freedom of expression appears to be on the losing team as the first Olympic Asbo comes into force
One may question whether “the practice of sport is a human right”, as stated in the Olympic Charter. But it cannot be doubted that it is not as important as the right of freedom of expression, which is regarded as fundamental to democracy.
Yet this right seems often to be trammeled in the name of the Olympics. At the Beijing Games demonstrations were prohibited save with a permit in three ’demonstration areas’. In fact, would-be demonstrators were deterred from applying and those who did were not granted permits anyway.
In the run-up to the London Games questions must be asked about whether freedom of expression is being respected here. The London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act 2006 prohibits businesses from any promotion linked to the Games. It would catch, for example, a bed and breakfast offering a discount on rooms to anyone attending the Games, or a pub that gets in a big screen to show the Games and publicises the fact on a sign outside. Newspapers have also reported that the quango responsible for enforcement of the act, Locog, will also be cracking down on Facebook and YouTube postings during the Games.
Such prohibitions appear to go beyond the justification Locog itself advances for them: protecting the official sponsors, who fund the Games, from unofficial competition.
The invasion of freedom of expression also ratcheted up last week with the service of the first Olympic Asbo. This followed the efforts of three protesters to prevent the erection of a temporary basketball court by the Olympic Development Authority on Leyton Marsh in Hackney. The protesters claimed that workmen were unlawfully digging through topsoil into the protected marsh.
According to press reports, the Asbo, served on one of the three protesters Simon Moore, makes it a criminal offence for Moore to enter within 100 yards of any Olympic competition or practice venue or within 100 yards of any road being used for Olympic activities. The Asbo also prevents Moore from trespassing on any building or land, taking part in “any activity that disrupts the intended” activities at the Olympics or, for good measure, at any Diamond Jubilee celebrations, or that “obstructs” the passage of any Olympic participant - including officials and spectators - at any time.
The use of Asbos to prevent individuals engaging in offensive and valueless anti-social conduct is one thing. But their use to impose prior restraints on the genuine exercise of freedom of expression, as well as the exercise of other rights such as ordinary use of the highway or attending an event for which one has tickets, is much more questionable and goes beyond current authority, Singh v Chief Constable of West Midlands (2006) EWCA Civ 1118.
Even accepting that the detailed facts have not been reported, it is difficult to conceive how a protest against the digging up of protected marshland could justify prior restraints on association and expression in other contexts.
That this has been done in the name of the Olympic Games - and indirectly at least the ’human right’ to engage in sport - is a regrettable further manifestation of the tension between the Olympics and one of the most venerated democratic rights.
Readers' comments (5)
Jenny Miskin | 30-Apr-2012 11:06 am
Interesting article; though the suggestion that the courts are saying that a "right to sport" trumps freedom of expression is a bit simplistic and unfair. Even without the Olympics, freedom of expression does not mean the right to trespass or to protest by breaking the law. The Olympics is a huge event that huge numbers of people have put heart and soul into - not just the athletes but also the thousands of ordinary Londoners who are giving up their time by volunteering. Tom H's article doesn't mention them, but there's a real issue here about the insatiable anger and disruptive potential of a small minority spoiling things for the vast majority who are proud that London is hosting the Games and want to enjoy them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Pieter de Waal | 30-Apr-2012 2:07 pm
Tom Hickman’s article mentions that the ASBO served on Simon Moore "followed the efforts of three protesters to prevent the erection of a temporary basketball court by the Olympic Development [sic] Authority on Leyton Marsh in Hackney."
For balance and context (and this is reported), the ASBO was served by the police following Mr Moore's breach of a High Court injunction prohibiting unlawful activity, which led to his arrest for offences under the Public Order Act, of which he was convicted in the Magistrates Court.
Pieter de Waal
Head of Legal
Olympic Delivery Authority
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
TheHerder | 1-May-2012 5:23 pm
"That this has been done in the name of the Olympic Games - and indirectly at least the ’human right’ to engage in sport - is a regrettable further manifestation of the tension between the Olympics and one of the most venerated democratic rights."
The irony of the Olympic Games touting sport as a human right..... but at the same still allowing the all-male Saudi Arabian team to participate. There is no female Saudi team. The Saudi's don't think that women have a human right to sport!
I think the Olympics haven't quite reached the grasping-greed-and-corruption levels of FIFA yet but they're not far behind.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-May-2012 0:09 am
Anyone interested to see the legal lengths that the ODA (Odious Destruction Authority [sick] ;) will go to intimidate the local community who oppose this development can visit the the Save Leyton Marsh Campaign website:
http://saveleytonmarsh.wordpress.com/
The Evening Standard paper edition reported the potential £335,000 of costs leveled against a local dog-waker who was named as a defendent (although she was unaware of the existence of the injunction) for sitting under a blocked lorry with her son.
A nasty shock to think you could lose your house for making an impetuous (but ultimately harmless) decision based on a genuine concern for what is happening to local green space you care about.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-May-2012 3:52 pm
I have spent the last couple of days digging into the myriad rules and regulations restricting business activities during the Games (sorry, large sporting event involving a number of nations). The 'association' criterion is incredibly broad in scope.
I entirely understand the need to preserve the Olympic brand for the benefit of the movement and the sponsors/licensees who are footing 97% of the bill, however asking a lingerie shop in Melton Mowbray to take down a window display because the mannequins were wearing Olympic-coloured hula hoops is stretching it! A bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment