Letter in Brent Times: Leaflet Policy is Danger to Free Speech

Transcript of letter in Kilburn Times, 26 April 2012 edition (p. 16):

"Leaflets: Policy is danger to free speech"

Thank you for exposing the audacity of Brent Council’s latest proposal to constrain free speech on our streets (‘Leaflets fee set to hit protest groups’, front page, and ‘Is new leaflet control really just about cutting litter?’ editorial, Brent Times, 19 April).

The audacity of the proposal being tabled at the Executive, “Control of Distribution of Free Literature on Designated Land”, and the flimsiness of the environmental pretext given for it, does not conceal the danger to the principle and practice of free speech that it would pose.

My Green Party colleague, Martin Francis, has solicited a clarification from the Council that exemptions for the requirement to apply for a licence to leaflet would also apply to political literature of a non-party political sort. This more inclusive interpretation, though welcome, is hardly cause for celebration. The proposal itself would have us fundamentally alter the presumption of free speech which we enjoy in this country.

Firstly, there should be no question that a potential leafleter need seek permission from the Council before distributing literature not covered by the exemptions, such as that promoting a local business or a cultural event.

We already have sufficient legal apparatus to cover cases either where literature is inciting hatred or where trespass has occurred or in order to combat littering.

Second, there should be no question that a potential leafleter should have been expected to anticipate such a requirement, if and when operative, either upon payment of a licence application fee or on pain of penalty otherwise.

Third, the principle and practice of free speech, as enjoined in the publication and distribution of literature, is ordinarily of no material business to the Council, and certainly not on some relatively inconsequential basis as the prevention of litter.

Moreover, the criteria given for potential application of such licensing regimes are neither physically proximate, in the case of streets far from Wembley Stadium, nor clearly confined to the duration of the Games and the Games alone.

This potential threat of interference to the ordinary and everyday business of Brent residents and local business people, and the very fact that the Council would even consider such action, betrays yet again the contempt with which they must hold us.

The Council is demonstrating, in its half-baked clarifications and lack of anticipation of them, not only gross incompetence; but, moreover, ill-motivation in seeking to legislate against something which is a fundamental democratic entitlement.

Not content with doublespeak over the harm they have perpetrated over library closures, they now wish to audit and censor what we would read, for a fee, of course.

One is left incredulous at the incompetence and maliciousness of this administration, which apparently knows no bounds.

Shahrar Ali
Green Party London Assembly candidate for Brent and Harrow
NW9

UPDATE: Since this letter was submitted, the Executive approved the proposal. Coverage by Martin Francis Here and Here. Brent Times story Here.

Control of Distribution of Free Literature on Designated Land: Brent Council's Dangerous Nonsense

Brent Council is currently considering the following proposal, to be debated at the Executive on Monday 23 April. The title of the proposal should ring alarm bells, and already has elsewhere, notably on my colleague, Martin Francis' blog, here and here. You couldn't make it up and I'm trying to work out whether the proposal is ill-motivated (ie. money-grabbing fees schedule even to apply for a licence to leaflet) or cack-handed or both.

One thing is absolutely sure, this is a nonsense proposal, and dangerous nonsense at that, which would seek to curtail the free exercise of speech and shift the presumption of its enjoyment by citizens to have the Council vet it instead, for a fee and after expenditure of effort on the part of the potential leafleter.

Martin's correspondence with the Council has focussed on the important question of what forms of literature would be exempt from the requirement for a licenced approval in the designated areas of Brent in question. Section 3.4 of the proposal states:

"These powers do not apply to materials promoting charities, for religious purposes or for political purposes." (Control of distribution of literature on Designated Land, 3.4)

Does "political purposes" extend to political campaigns that do not have any formal party political affiliation to speak of? The current reply of the Council spokesperson is that the exemption would apply to political campaigns of a non-party political sort.

However, this clarification, welcome though it might be, is hardly cause for finding confidence in the remainder of the proposal. The Council pretext that special restrictions may be required to control litter in the run up to the Olympic Games hardly explains the reach of the restrictions, either in terms of:

1. The neighbourhoods that would be affected include Harlesden, Willesden, Cricklewood and Kilburn, nowhere near the Wembley Stadium Protective parking zone (in so far as proximity could be a criterion).

2. The expiry date of these proposals is not carried.

3. The negative impact upon local businesses who might otherwise have leafleted, through lack of a licence or penalty for not soliciting approval, is disproportionate to the harm supposedly mitigated, that of litter.

To the contrary, this proposal leaves one feeling incredulous that a Council could be both so incompetent and ill-motivated. I guess the answer to my earlier question was both all along.