Section 76, which criminalizes taking pictures of the police in Britain, angers photojournalists and activists
Matt Kennard talks to photojournalists and activists about Section 76 of the Terrorism Act 2008, which makes taking pictures of the police potentially illegal.
By Matt Kennard on Saturday, February 28th, 2009 - 910 words.
Last week the New Labour government began the latest stage of their effort to dismantle the remaining civil liberties of the British people. This time round it’s Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, a sinister piece of legislation which effectively makes it illegal to take pictures of police officers if the feel like arresting you. The section prohibits “[e]liciting, publishing or communicating information about members” of the armed forces, police and other law enforcement “which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”, which gives the police on the ground carte blanche to arrest anyone photographing them (it’s likely terrorists don’t advertize their trade on their t-shirts).
If you have been on protests on the streets of Britain over the last decade you will know how authoritarian this law is likely to become. Not content with having more surveillance cameras per person than any other country in the world, the British police are punctilious archivists. On any given protest, the police will have a squad of photographers and videographers recording the demonstrators, without any pretext; just walking down the street with your kids with a placard makes you a suspect, with no recourse to finding out what is done with the information. In response demonstrators have taken to recording the police back, and sometimes getting footage and pictures of police brutality, which isn’t popular at the Met. Now for this little bit of cheekiness you could languish in jail for 10 years.
FIT Watch is a guerilla activist group which was set up to combat Forward Intelligence Teams — the police that watch protestors. They often get into scuffles with the police, but now they could potentially be arrested and put in prison en masse. Emily Apple, 33, is one of the founders. “It was set up as a response to FIT trying to harrrass people off the streets, and what was a clear campaign of intimidation against activists… We oppose the use of cameras on demonstrations, through publishing details of police officers.” She continues, “They keep records of us, so we keep them on them.” She says the reasoning given by the government — that terrorists could use such information for their own purposes — is tosh. “We’re obiously scared that it will be used against us, but nothing we are doing is of use to terrorists, associating pictures with terrorism is ludicrous, we will continue doing what we are doing because it is important, systematic repression of protests needs to be highlighted and challenged.”
Another law — Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 — had already given the police the right to stop and search any individual for “articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism”. For photojournalists, this has often mean their cameras, and reports of stop and search of photographers are growing.
Being eager to test out this new law I went down on Friday to the Animal Rights demonstration outside the Bank of England deep in financial district of London. It was the first major protest in the UK since the new law came into effect. For a workday it wasn’t a bad turnout, probably about 350 people, with large numbers of police too. I got out my BlackBerry and started snapping the police and — nothing. There was no reaction, no-one tried to stop me, even though I was right in their face. Then one officer remarked to another that I was “persisting in taking photos”, but nothing happened. The FIT police, with their video cameras were there too, and didn’t seem to mind as I put my BlackBerry up close. I stopped when one officer saw me taking a flick and pulled his hat down over his face to obscure it. But I was not arrested and did not have my camera taken. “So you don’t mind me taking photos of you?” I asked one cop. “No, it’s fine, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the protest,” he replied. And that was that. But the real problem with this law is not one amateur with a BlackBerry; it will be about the abuse we don’t see, the photographer capturing the malfeasance of the police and having their camera confiscated and the protester eager to document those documenting them. Watch this space, and look below at the selection of photos I got from Friday’s demonstration.
PC Plod... Not bothered
He said: "Take photos as long as it doesn't interfere with the protest"
Watching them watching us
This protestor, Roger Harris, 72, said: "I expect to be arrested and detained or have my camera taken today," as he took photos of the police
Don't look into the camera
This camera-shy one hid his face from my BlackBerry
Mutual documentation; no arrests
"My right side is my best"
And remember CF readers, please do not use these photos for any “terrorist-related activities”, as you could land me in jail for up to ten years.
***
And below are some famous pictures of British police that might now be classed illegal:
Arrest of Josie Smith, a retired, disabled miner, during police efforts to escort returning miners back to work, 1984, (Keith Pattison)
Miners strike in Ogreave in 1984, (Don McPhee)
Poll Tax riots, 1989
(+3 rating, 3 votes)
Loading ...4 Comments
Leave a Reply
Matt Kennard
26London
Matt Kennard graduated from the Journalism School at Columbia University as a Toni Stabile Investigative scholar in 2008. He now works for the Financial Times in London. He has written for the Guardian, Salon, The Comment Factory and the Chicago Tribune, amongst others. In 2006 he won the Guardian Student Feature Writer of the Year Award
mattkennard@thecommentfactory.com
Articles by this author
-
Chavez, Morales and Correa must speak out on Iran
As I said some months ago, when I get depressed about the state of the world I’m always cheered to think of the movements in Latin America that are genuinely empowering the hitherto marginalised sections of those societies. This movement has the power to make itself felt throughout the world – but it needs to apply itself consistently. That can even take the approach of Lula who stopped short of denunciation and just put forward an offer of sanctuary in an effort to shame the Iranian regime
-
The Observer's Chomsky fetish
Chomsky is big enough to put up with this kind of rubbish, but can the Guardian or Observer, the most influential left-wing journal in the English-speaking world, really not find one journalist who doesn’t have a visceral dislike of Noam Chomsky? Sadly, but maybe predictably, for a newspaper made up of liberals pickled in the self-righteous playfields of Oxbridge liberalism, I guess they don’t
-
The fight to preserve Latin America's democratic revolution
For Prof Anderson the template of Spain after Franco’s destruction of civil society “has become the general formula of freedom: no longer making the world safe for democracy, but democracy safe for this world.” Through a confluence of historical factors, Latin America is the crucible where the last chance to make a world safe for democracy is being fought. The importance of this battle shouldn’t be underestimated: if it fails, we might not get another chance
-
Jan Nederveen Pieterse on Globalization and Empire
The fundamentals of American weakness are its shrinking share of world manufacturing, its gargantuan consumption, low savings rate, faulty policies (massive military spending, massive war spending, deep tax cuts) and gigantic financial deficits. Some problems are structural (high American health care costs are a function of lack of restraint on pharmaceutical industries and reflect the large influence of business interests); this prompts outsourcing, which further weakens the American economy. The military interventions are destabilizing (increase risks for others) and costly (adding to American economic problems) and erode American legitimacy. So the problems are not merely overstretch
-
Massive Attack on influences, war and the cult of fame
I think a lot of it is damaging and I feel there has to be at some point a change in the way we deal with different peoples situations and development. I hate double standards more than anything – I hate the current row over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and whether they should be allowed to have nuclear technology or even nuclear energy. It seems to me that our history is littered with hypocrisy and I find that quite hard to live with being a British citizen
-
Matt Kennard on Russia Today extended: 'US Army sent 'hardcore' neo-Nazi troops to Iraq and Afghanistan'
Under the Bush administration, the U.S. military allegedly started to recruit neo-Nazis and gang members to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Investigative journalist Matt Kennard talks to RT about his researh into these allegations and other problems in the US military.
-
Tony Benn on the EU, Cuba and Islam
Well I don’t think it helps to go around saying, “Try Blair for war crimes,” if you’re trying to persuade Labour MPs to vote against the war and they are told they’ve got to arrest and see Blair and Cherie locked up. It’s ridiculous. I said this to all the people… I mean it’s mad… I can understand peoples anger, but it is crazy
-
Hilary Benn on aid, the US, Iraq, and Tony Blair
The truth is: The real answer to the question why did we take the decision that we did, is because on the 18th March 2003 a majority of the House of Commons voted to do it
-
Johann Hari on Chomsky, Hitchens, Iraq, and anarchism
But I think Hitchens arguments are so well put and one should engage with them and take them at face value. He says Saddam was intermeshed increasingly with Islam. Zarquawi, for example, was already in Iraq before the war. I don’t agree with his argument on that. Ba’athism and Islamism are different things, and should be opposed for different reasons
-
Polly Toynbee on Iraq and New Labour
No I think it’s very difficult to navigate because for one thing even if you more want to bring democracy to the Middle East more than you want to take the oil – which I think probably is the case now – but such is the fear of fundamentalism that you wonder if you knock over the Saudi’s who takes over? Is it even stronger Wahhabist, and is that even more dangerous, and even less democratic? It’s very difficult
-
Noam Chomsky on the US Empire and hopes and prospects
They hope that China will organize a coalition of peace loving states to stop the militarism and aggressiveness headed by the US and its British ally. Well it's interesting that they have such contempt for American democracy and British democracy: they don't even dream of it coming from within. I don't agree with it - I don't think we have to wait for China to save us from all doom - I think we can do it ourselves
-
Professor Michael Mann on America's incoherent empire
The most you can have is a kind of informal imperialism where the state remains sovereign - you don’t try to interfere in it but you limit its options. This is what, typically, the US has done in Latin America when it is not intervening. The US is formidable. People contrast so-called multilateralism to unilateralist and they think of the United Nations. The US runs the UN and had run the UN for most of the 1990s and that’s what the US can do because the US provides certain resources that no-one else can provide. Nothing much is going to happen in the way of international activity unless the US is part of it and leading it and that’s what the US can return to again. What I think it cannot do is to reconstruct foreign countries on its own without having considerable local support
Important article
Had no idea. Wonder how Orwell would have reacted at the thought of Big Brother taking over his homeland. Probably why he wrote the story.
These laws seem like pretty scary prospects. Next thing you know expressing dissent will be regarded as inspiring terrorism.
Sorry I can't help quoting the old line: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes-"Who watches the watchmen?"
Could I be arrested for a photo I took of police officers in Belfast last year? That law is absolutely absurd. There are a few similar laws in the U.S., such as not being able to take photos inside of certain Metro stations in Washington, D.C. because of "potential terrorism." That includes anyone from a photojournalist to your typical Midwest tourist.
It is deeply sinister that photos of the police are no longer allowed. It's quite funny though how ordinary citizens can be tracked day and night via CCTV (not to mention the fabulous but clearly riddled with potential for dodginess of Google Street view) but one photo of a police officer is viewed as a breach of security. I think this is part of a process to separate the forces of law and order from the population: doing this isn't about a few photos of bored bobbies or truncheons flailing around where they shouldn't be (this is not usually apologised for in any case), but about distancing the forces of order from the people. It makes them into "celebrities", somehow different from the rest of us, by that I mean unattainable, with a special status. Unattainable is the bit that scares me, as in unattainable if you need them, or need them to sympathise with you in any way.