Every time a bill aimed at promoting law and order and helping the police do their job, is discussed, either in public or at the legislature, there will be some self-appointed defender of human rights seeking its watering down. These do-gooders will usually object to a provision or two, on the grounds it violated a human right, not caring that if the provision is scrapped it would render the law ineffective.

This phenomenon was manifested at the House legal affairs committee on Wednesday when the government bill aimed at regulating public protests was being discussed. The bill, which was presented by Justice Minister Marios Hartsiotis, creates a legal framework for the holding of protests. For example, it stipulates that organisers of protests would have to inform local authorities which would coordinate with police who could place some restrictions on the location, the timing and routes to be followed.

These provisions were described as undemocratic by a group of activists invited to the committee and they argued that the bill gave “excessive powers” to the police. They claimed there should be well-defined limits to state intervention in what they believed was a “fundamental human right.” Is it a fundamental human right to stop traffic on a busy road for several hours or to block access to a hospital? Is it really the human right of protesters to deprive other people of the right to use public roads or to go freely about their business?

The police have a responsibility to safeguard the right of free movement of citizens not participating in the protest, which is why the law stipulates that the police should have a say about the time and place of a planned protest. A demonstration cannot be allowed to be held at a busy city junction during morning rush hour, on a road leading to a hospital, or on a highway, recently used by hunters. It is not a “human right” to disrupt people’s lives, however worthy the cause of the protesters might be.

Related Articles

As if the woolly-minded objections of activists were not bad enough, Ombudswoman Maria Stylianou Lottides, also disagreed with a provision of the bill that made it a criminal offence for a protester to refuse to remove face coverings when there was suspicion of violence at a demonstration. Lottides questioned the rationale of punishing an individual for covering their face, saying “intent alone should not be penalised.” We are sure this is a valid theoretical point, and the provision may seem undemocratic, but the police must also have the power to enforce the law. How can they do this when the law would allow troublemakers, such as football hooligans, to hide their face?

Human rights must be safeguarded but a line must be drawn at the point where these rights are used to protect people breaking the law.