A little thought experiment, just imagine this, a foreign government introduces a law

clamping down on the right to protest, and the United Nations condemns the law

as incompatible with the country's international human rights obligations,

regarding people's right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

The UN goes on to condemn the law for imposing a serious and undue restriction on these rights

that are neither necessary nor proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose as defined

under international law. What do we think? What would go through our heads?

Would we think what Tim Potdictatorship is this? Disrespecting human rights at war with democracy

itself? Does that say anything about a Putin's Russia? Well, we don't need to imagine

that this is a foreign government because what I'm doing here is talking about our country,

the United Kingdom, and I'm quoting the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights,

who is discussing the public order bill, which has been passed and much of which has now been

imposed just in time for the coronation of the king. Now, as the UN notes, the law is especially worrying

because it expands the power of the police to stop and search individuals, including without

suspicion, and we know, based on all the evidence, that stop and search is implemented

in a discriminatory and racist way. You will far more like to be stopped and searched, for example,

if you are black. It defines some of the new criminal offences in a vague and overly broad manner,

and imposes unnecessary and disproportionate criminal sanctions on people organizing or taking

part in peaceful protest. It also, the UN goes on to note, introduces serious disruption

prevention orders that allow UK courts to ban affected individuals from being in certain places

at certain times, being with particular people, or using the internet in certain ways,

and could lead to the individual in question being electronically monitored,

...