AntiSocialBehaviour

In the **United Kingdom**, there is an *Anti Social Behaviour Bill* being discussed which has a different aim than the AntiRacism law in Switzerland: It tries to educate people – adults and children. ¹ ² It seems that even children and are subject to fines for swearing, there are fines for littering, begging, greater police powers against groups of people, etc. Let me cite from ’’Briefing: Liberty’s second reading briefing on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill in the House of Lords: July 2003’’ ³:

AntiRacism

¹

²

³

• 8. The Bill provides for the police or Local Authority to be able to claim for expenses occurred (Clause 8) or for anyone who suffers loss ­ usually the owner- to claim compensation (Clause 10). In order to claim compensation for loss the owner has to satisfy a number of requirements. One of these is that the owner took reasonable steps to prevent use. This presumes the owner was aware of the use. It is quite possible that the owner might not be aware of the use the property is being put to, for example if they live overseas. [...]
• 12. This part of the Bill concerns extending police powers ­ and the powers of community support officers ­ to disperse groups and to remove under-16s to their place of residence. Liberty is concerned that these new powers are open to abuse, that socially disadvantaged areas are likely to be unfairly targeted and that these new provisions are unnecessary in light of existing laws to tackle problems of anti-social or criminal behaviour. Clause 30 provides the police with the ability to disperse groups or remove individuals in areas where anti-social behaviour is believed to be a significant and persistent problem.

1. In particular, Liberty believes that an order not to return to the area within 24 hours is particularly excessive. If the purpose of the power is to disperse a group of individuals with immediate effect, it is difficult to justify why an individual should be prevented from returning to the area the next day. Breaching a directio in an offence carrying a term of imprisonment up to three months. [...]

• 17. The police will also gain additional powers to deal with minors in an authorised area. In effect, they will be able to operate a blanket curfew from 9pm. [...]
• 22. Clause 39 extends penalty notices to those aged 16 or 17 and allows the Secretary of State to further extend this ­ by order - to those as young as ten. The parents or guardians would be liable for the penalty. We do not believe that fixed penalty notices should be extended to those under the age of 18. Liberty believes that this could lead to the unacceptable situation whereby relatively affluent parents are able to buy their children out of trouble, whereas less affluent parents may face prosecution if they are unable to afford the fines.
• 25. [...] Clause 59 amends the definition of `public assembly’ [...] so that instead of 20 people being required to constitute an assembly only 2 are now needed. The relevance of this is that Section 14 of the Act gives a senior police officer wide ranging powers to impose conditions on assemblies. These conditions include restrictions on the place where it may be held, its duration, the number of people who constitute an assembly. Failing to comply with such a condition is an offence. It is necessary for the officer to believe that there may be serious disorder damage to property and so on but there is no need to justify this belief to any other person or court.

1. Clause 62 creates an offence if someone who has been instructed to leave fails to leave the land or enters any other land in the whole local authority area within three months. This is entirely disproportionate as it makes any form of trespass (which should always be a civil matter unless there is aggravation) criminal. [...]