Professor David Paton, writing at Unherd.com, notes that the Covid lockdowns and mandates set a precedent, that fundamental civil liberties could be over-ridden in the name of the "common good," with this slippery concept being defined by politicians. Thus, the Labour Party elites are considering imposing Covid-style lockdowns to crush the wave of anti-immigration protests that has swept across Britain. Instead of disease, the thing to control now is "violence," but only from the Right, never thew multicult groups. Of course, when there were protests during the George Floyd freak-out by the Left and diverse, with violence, this was never considered, neither in the UK or US. Protest by Leftist groups such as Just Stop Oil did not lead to the government response that there should be control of online information and the expansion of state surveillance through facial recognition. The government had this one ready to go waiting for the right moment.
You see it is only the White herd who must be controlled, as this majority population is ear-marked for demographic culling.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/covid-style-controls-on-protests-set-a-dangerous-precedent/
"When the last Government enacted draconian restrictions on the right to assembly and protest on the pretext of limiting the spread of Covid-19, there were warnings about the precedent this could set. Namely, that basic civil rights could be put aside by politicians with little scrutiny or serious challenge.
Those concerns are beginning to seem prophetic. John Woodcock, ex-Labour MP and Government advisor on political violence, argued this weekend that reinstating Covid-like restrictions would be the right response to the violent disorder taking place around the country following the dreadful events in Southport last week. At the same time, Keir Starmer has signalled moves that include more Government control of online information and the expansion of state surveillance through facial recognition.
Civil rights groups such as Big Brother Watch have expressed concern about the implications of such proposals for civil rights. But there is an even more fundamental principle that has been under attack for some time which has received much less attention: those who make our laws should not decide which of those laws we are allowed to protest against.
Violence during public protests, especially against the police, is inexcusable, and the targeting by rioters of migrant hotels this weekend is deeply troubling. But the suggestion in some quarters that the main problem is violence from far-Right protestors is wide of the mark. In recent years, we have seen violent protests by extremists from across the political spectrum including groups linked to the far-Left, Islam, anti-racism, Just Stop Oil and the transgender movement.
Yet despite systematic aggression and violence from all these factions, the one group politicians have decided to ban is anti-abortion activists outside clinics. Such protests in the UK have been entirely peaceful, largely consisting of Christians praying quietly and offering non-judgemental support to pregnant women: no threats to the police and no violent disorder.
This "buffer zone" law sets a hugely significant precedent that should worry people of all political persuasions: MPs have taken it on themselves also to adjudicate which issues people have the right to protest against. Under the buffer zone law, for example, animal rights activists could protest against animal experimentation on drugs outside a clinic or hospital even if the protests caused upset to staff or patients. But if an elderly Christian lady decides to protest (or even pray) against abortion, at the same venue, MPs have decided she should be deemed to be committing a criminal offence. In contrast, protests by far-Right (or far-Left) extremists in Southport or elsewhere remain legal, as long as they do not veer into violence.
This is not the first time MPs have tried to pull such a trick. During much of the Covid pandemic, lockdown laws passed by MPs essentially banned mass protests against those same lockdown laws. Yet when it came to a different issue, many of the MPs who supported crackdowns on anti-lockdown marches were quite happy to encourage and even take part in protests for the Black Lives Matter movement.
Once the principle is established that politicians can decide which issues we can protest about and where, then the act of protest is no longer a fundamental right. Rather it is something for which we require government permission to be given or rejected depending on the issue involved. That is a development those who cheered on Covid restrictions or abortion buffer zone laws may live to regret.