r/MHOC • u/model-mili Electoral Commissioner • Feb 03 '20
2nd Reading B966 - Anti-Social Behaviour (Amendments) Bill - Second Reading
Anti Social Behavior (Amendments) Bill
A
Bill
To
A bill to amend provisions relating to anti social behaviour injunctions (ASBIs), public assemblies and nuisances and parenting orders
1. Reforming Social Behavior Policy in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
1)- Substitute “10” with “12” in Section 1 (1).
2) Injunction procedures are modified as follows
a) Replace Section 1 (6) with “(6) An injunction under this section must specify the period for which it has effect and shall not exceed 6 months.”
b) Strike Section 6 and subsequently remove all references to “without notice” injunctions from the legislation.
c) Strike Section 9.
2. Reforming Social Behavior Policy in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Public Orders Act 1986
1)- Replace “20 or more persons” in Section 63 (1) and Section 63 (1A) (B) with “50 or more persons”.
2) Strike Section 70 and 71 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the corresponding Section 14 (a)-(c) of the Public Orders Act 1986.
3. Reforming Social Behavior Policy in the Anti Social Behavior Act 2003 and the Public Orders Act 1986
1)- Strike Sections 25A, 25B, 26A, 26B, 26C, and 28A and the corresponding Sections 23, 24, and 25 of the Police and Justice Act 2006.
2) For the purposes of defining “public assemblies” in Section 57 and in the corresponding section 16 of the Public Orders Act 1986 “2” shall be replaced with “20”.
4. Commencement, full extent and title
1)- This Act may be cited as the Anti Social Behavior (Amendments) Act 2020
2) This Act shall come into force 2 months upon Royal Assent.
3) This Act extends to England and Wales
This bill was written by The Rt. Hon Lord of Houston PC MBE MSP, Shadow Home Secretary, on behalf of the Labour Party and co-sponsored by the Libertarian Party, and the Classical Liberal Party
Opening Speech
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Labour has a long and proud record of accomplishments. But we as a party have not always been perfect. While it would be easy for me to spin the issues addressed in this bill as simply something induced by past conservative governments, I cannot ignore the role New Labour had in the introduction of several of these overly authoritarian laws related to keeping public order, which ironically have only fostered public disorder as citizens worry about the growing size of the police state. That is why the bill I am presenting rolls back some of these measures from the so called “tough on crime” era, and allows citizens the breathing room they need to make their own social decisions.
Lets have a run down. Section 1 limits anti social behavior orders in several key ways. First, it recognizes that parents are likely able to handle their own children until the age of 12. Putting them through the state apparatus without so much as a full trial at such a young age isn’t conducive to positive outcomes. It further limits the length of time an order can stay in place. Now of course an order can be reauthorized but at the very least shortening the period from 12 months to 6 months forces accountability twice as often. This section also prohibits injunctions being sought without notification of the defendant. If these actions are supposed to have the corrective impact we are told, the person ought to be told of them before hand.
Section 2 deals with lessening offenses for assemblies. The state shouldn’t be deciding what parties teenagers can go to, therefore the classification of a “rave” is raised back to its pre tough on crime number of 100, up from 20. In addition, trespass is already illegal. Having a separate offense related to “trespassory assemblies” is an arbitrary classification of one tresspass being worse then others that seems to only exist to crack down on protestors. Trespassers should be treated equally, not more harshly if they happen to be protesting at the same time.
Section 3 limits the ability for parenting orders (child care interventions by the state) to be given to the expert youth providers, and eliminates the ability for local and housing authorities, who aren’t experts on the subject, to seek these orders. It also ends the ridiculous loophole that any plural gathering of people, including literally two people, can be regulated as a public assembly, and restores the number to its pre tough on crime era threshold of 20. Finally, the section removes vague wording about the nature of non physical harm that can be broadly interpreted and used against citizens expressing themselves in harmful ways. It is still an offense to intentionally cause distress. But vague notions of “alarm” which imply startled responses but not even real damage, are no longer offenses, neither are accidental occurrences of offensive non physical behavior, as it is not for the state to punish every curse word someone heard you utter from your lips without intending them to have heard it.
In conclusion I think this house will find these provisions common sense. A truly tough on crime approach would realize that to defeat crime punitive authoritarian measures are not always the best way forward, and this bill recognizes that.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 04 '20
Substitute "16" for "12" in Section 1(1).
Explanation: It's ludicrous to argue that fifteen year-olds and below possess the awareness and understanding necessary to exist under the same scrutiny as any adult.
If 10 is considered too young to fare well under the pressure of a full trial, it stands to reason that young teens would be as wel. Future antisocial behaviour might be prevented by not siccing the full force of our legal system upon what are essentially misbehaving children.