Lesson video

Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin, and I'm going to be taking you through this Citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be successful, and I'm also going to pause and tell you when to complete a check for understanding or a task.

I hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is called "What does the law have to do with campaigning?" And it comes from the unit of lessons "Synopticity: How do different ideas and concepts in Citizenship interconnect?" By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain how legislation can both support and limit campaigning and also how campaigns can influence legislation.

Before we start the lesson, let's just go over some ground rules.

We need to make sure that we're listening to others.

It is okay to disagree with each other, but we should listen properly before making assumptions or deciding how to respond.

When disagreeing, challenge the statement, not the person.

We need to make sure we're respecting privacy.

We can discuss examples, but do not use names or descriptions that identify anyone, including ourselves.

No judgement.

We can explore beliefs and misunderstandings about a topic without fear of being judged.

And also to choose a level of participation.

Everyone has the right to choose not to answer a question or join discussion.

We never put anyone on the spot.

Our keywords for today's lesson are campaigning, which is actions or events organised by an individual or a group of people to achieve an aim.

Legislation, which is a law or a set of laws that have been passed by Parliament; the word is also used to describe the act of making a new law.

And rights, something we are entitled to by law.

Our lesson outline for "What does the law have to do with campaigning?" is first we're going to look at how has legislation impacted campaigning rights? And we're then going to look at how has campaigning impacted legislation? So let's start by looking at how has legislation impacted campaigning rights? So the law both protects and limits the way people can campaign.

In the UK, laws play a key role in shaping what campaigning looks like.

On one hand, certain pieces of legislation actively protect people's ability to speak up and push for change.

However, while these freedoms are protected by law, other pieces of legislation set boundaries around how campaigning can be carried out, so what this actually looks like in practise.

So Aisha's asking, "Can you think of any laws that have either strengthened or weakened the right to campaign?" Pause and have a think.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is a very important law in relation to campaigning as it gives everyone the legal right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, which are really important when campaigning.

This means that people can voice opinions, organise protests, and come together in groups to speak truth to power.

These rights form the legal foundation for much of the campaigning that happens in the UK today.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects your right to have your own opinions and to express them freely without interference from the Government.

This means you can share your views out loud, like in a protest, or in other ways such as writing articles or books, making art, posting on social media, or even appearing on TV or the radio to share your opinions.

It also means you have the right to receive information too.

This law helps make sure everyone has a voice and is important within a democracy.

And Article 11 of the Human Rights Act states that everyone has the right to gather peacefully in groups and to join with others to support shared interests, like joining a club, campaign group, or a trade union to protect their rights at work.

This is called the right to freedom of assembly, that's what it means to assemble, and association, to be associated with a group.

There can be limits on these rights in certain situations, but these must be fair, reasonable, and needed to keep society safe.

People in certain jobs, like the police or army, might have extra rules to follow about when and how they can use these rights.

Let's have a quick check for understanding.

Can you summarise Article 10 and Article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998? So Article 10 protects what, and Article 11 states what? Let's see how you got on.

So Article 10 protects your right to have your own opinions and to express them freely without interference from the Government.

And Article 11 states that everyone has the right to gather peacefully in groups and to join with others to support shared interests.

The Equality Act 2010, although not a piece of legislation directly linked to campaigning, has encouraged campaigning for equal rights by protecting people from discrimination.

Campaigners can use this law to push for better protection of those with a protected characteristic.

Historical laws have also paved the way for campaigning.

So for example, the Representation of the People Acts, which went right the way back from 1918 onwards, granted a wider range of citizens suffrage.

So this gave citizens a stronger legal voice as they were now able to have their say via elections and political action, who were finally able to vote.

And voting in elections is a key part of democracy, and so is being able to lobby decision-makers.

Therefore, the extension of voting rights was a positive step towards the right to campaign.

Let's have a check for understanding.

What are the missing words? The Representation of the People Acts from 1918 onwards granted something to a wider range of citizens.

This gave these citizens a stronger legal voice as they were able to have their say via something and political action.

Pause and work out what the missing words are.

Let's see how you got on.

So the first missing word was suffrage, and the second missing word was elections.

However, legal decisions have also been made that have impacted campaigning rights in a different way, with some people being concerned that these have actually weakened the right to campaign, especially in relation to protesting rights, so that right to be able to protest.

So Aisha's asking, "Can you think of any examples?" So pause and just have a think.

Can you think of any laws that might have changed what people can or can't do during a protest? So the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has brought in significant changes to what can and cannot legally happen during a protest.

The Conservative Government, who brought the act into legislation, felt that, although protests are an important part of living in a free and fair society, these rights have limits.

Sometimes protests can cause disruption, and the police have to decide how much is too much.

It's important to find a fair balance between letting people protest and protecting the rest of the community.

So this is where that law kind of first came about with these considerations.

So Aisha's asking, "Why did the Government feel there needed to be changes?" Any idea? So the Government said that some protest groups had been causing serious disruption, like blocking roads and public transport, and making life unfairly difficult for people who were just trying to go to work or carry on with their normal day-to-day life.

So ultimately, their right to protest was going against other people's right just to get on with their daily life.

They also had concerns about the financial implications of some protests, so how much they were costing.

For example, during the 2019 protest by environmental group Extinction Rebellion, parts of London were shut down for days due to roadblocks.

And the police operation to manage those protests cost 37 million pounds.

The Government also raised safety concerns, saying that over 170 police officers were hurt during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, and nearly 1,000 arrests were made during Insulate Britain protests later that year.

These events also cost the police over 4 million pounds.

These concerns led to the Government believing that protest laws were out of date.

Police leaders also agreed that the law needed updating to deal with modern protest tactics.

Let's have a check for understanding.

State four reasons why the Government had concerns regarding protesting.

So you might have said from this list, so you might have said: stopped ordinary people getting on with their day-to-day lives, that the disruption was unfair, that road blocking was disruptive and could be dangerous.

You could have talked about financial implications, safety concerns, or that some protests turn violent.

So let's have a look at it in a bit more detail.

Let's consider Aisha's question about how did the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act change what can happen during a protest? So let's have a look at this in a bit more detail.

So as a direct result of this law, it now means that police can now set rules, such as the start and end times and also noise limits on public assemblies, not just marches.

So that's an assembly where people are static, they're not going anywhere, they're just coming together to assemble in one point.

It means that the police can still now set a start and an end time with these as well, not just marches that move.

Police can place restrictions on any protest if the noise seriously disrupts people nearby or disrupts an organisation, like a business or a public service.

So for example, that might be someone that's got a cafe or a restaurant, and they're saying that the noise is seriously disrupting them being able to run their business, for example.

Or if someone willfully blocks a road, they can now face an unlimited fine or up to six months in prison.

So that is now treated very differently, and actually blocking a road, because of the danger that that could potentially cause in terms of blocking emergency vehicles, that is now to be faced with an unlimited fine or up to six months in prison.

So these are some of the details of what that law has meant for protesting.

And also that protesters can no longer avoid punishment by claiming they didn't know about police rules.

So these are now well known, and these have been communicated.

Police can now order people to stop blocking vehicle entrances to Parliament.

And also, local councils can now quickly create Public Spaces Protection Orders, PSPOs, and that's to stop disruptive protests near schools and vaccination sites.

And some of this came as a result of what we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic and protests regarding vaccinations.

So Aisha's asking, "What do you think about these changes?" So just pause and consider that.

Do you think they're sensible? Do you agree with them? Do you not agree? Have a little think.

There are mixed thoughts about these legislation changes.

Some people may agree because the law still allows protesting but ensures the protest does not negatively impact people trying to go about their daily business, and also to prevent the protest becoming dangerous.

So this is for people who are for these changes.

However, other people disagree and believe that protests should be able to cause a disruption as the aim is to make people stop and take notice.

They also feel that these laws are negatively impacting people's right to protest freely.

There is a clear relationship between legislation and campaigning.

Various laws, including the Human Rights Act 1998, have strengthened the right to campaign.

However, the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has been seen by some to weaken the right to campaign and speak truth to power.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Can you complete each sentence? So there is a clear relationship between legislation and something.

Various laws, including the Human Rights Act 1998, have strengthened the right to something.

And the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has been seen by some to weaken the right to campaign and speak something.

So pause and have a go at completing each sentence.

Let's see how you got on.

So the first sentence was completed by the word campaigning, the second sentence, campaign, and the third sentence, truth to power.

For Task A, I would like you to explain in two paragraphs why some people might agree and disagree with the following statement.

So "The relationship between legislation and campaigning can only ever be viewed as positive." So explain using two paragraphs why some people might agree and some people might disagree with this statement.

When explaining opposing views of the statement "The relationship between legislation and campaigning can only ever be viewed as positive," you may have included: Some people might agree that the relationship is positive because the law gives people important freedoms that allow them to campaign for change.

For example, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects the right to express opinions freely, and Article 11 protects the right to hold peaceful protests and join with others to support causes.

These rights are essential for campaigners to speak up about issues and make their voices heard.

Laws have also helped improve fairness in campaigning, such as granting equal suffrage, which means everyone has the right to vote.

This shows how legislation has supported campaigning and made society more equal and democratic.

You may have continued with your second paragraph to say: However, others might disagree and say that the relationship isn't always positive, especially when laws are used to limit how and when people can campaign.

For example, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 gave the police new powers to place restrictions on protests if they are considered too noisy or disruptive.

It also increased penalties for blocking roads and made it easier to charge people who break protest rules.

Furthermore, some believe these new laws make it harder for campaigners to protest effectively and that they could be used to silence people with strong or unpopular views.

This suggests that legislation can sometimes work against campaigners, not just support them.

So we've considered how has legislation impacted campaigning rights? We're now going to flip it and consider how has campaigning impacted legislation? So campaigning has also impacted legislation.

Although only Parliament and judges can make and change laws, citizens in our democracy can still put pressure on decision-makers to create new legislation about issues that concern them.

Alex is asking, "Can you think of any examples?" So let's have a look at some examples together.

So a well-known example of campaigning to change the law is the women's suffrage movement, which began in the 1860s.

The campaign was divided into two branches: the Suffragists and the Suffragettes.

This is an interesting campaign as, although eventually successful, at the time there were concerns over the Suffragettes' tactics.

These methods were similar to recent campaign tactics that led to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act.

So Alex is asking, "What campaigning methods did they use, and what were they campaigning for?" The women's suffrage movement aimed to secure voting rights for women, something denied to all women in the UK before the 20th century.

And there were two main factions: The Suffragists, who used peaceful methods, and the Suffragettes, who used militant tactics.

The Suffragists believed in achieving voting rights for women through peaceful and legal methods.

They believed that, if they were calm and rational, this respectability would persuade the Government to listen and change legislation, allowing them to vote.

They organised petition campaigns collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures.

And remember, this was before social media.

They wrote regular letters to MPs, and they created leaflets that outlined their reasoning.

They also organised peaceful protests.

However, the Suffragettes believed that more militant action was needed to make themselves heard, and as a result, their campaigning methods were often extreme, and in some cases, illegal.

They chained themselves to railings, they smashed windows, and they even set fire to post boxes.

Some of the Suffragettes arrested for their actions went on hunger strike, which often resulted in forced feeding methods, leading to public outcry.

The women's suffrage movement was ultimately successful, and significant changes to legislation occurred.

These included the Representation of the People Act 1918, which gave voting rights to women over 30 who either owned property themselves or were married to a property owner.

And then the Equal Franchise Act in 1928, which gave equal voting rights to all women over 21, which at that time was equal to men.

Although the campaign methods used were not always lawful, many argue that the Suffragettes significantly helped influence universal suffrage, a key cornerstone of democracy.

So let's have a quick check for understanding.

State what the women's suffrage movement hoped to achieve.

State two methods that they used and state one piece of legislation their campaigning impacted.

So they hoped to achieve voting rights for women on equal terms to men.

They used peaceful protests, petitions, lobbying, chaining themselves to railings, setting fires, smashing windows, and hunger strikes.

And one of the pieces of legislation their campaigning impacted: you might have said the Representation of the People Act 1918 or the Equal Franchise Act 1928.

Another campaign that significantly shaped equality legislation was led by a campaign group called Stonewall, which is now a charity whose work still continues today.

Stonewall launched in 1989, exactly one year after Section 28 became law.

So Section 28 was a law that banned local authorities and schools from promoting homosexuality.

This meant that teachers could not talk openly about same-sex relationships.

This discriminatory law was one of the main driving forces behind Stonewall's campaign.

Stonewall were campaigning for a repeal of Section 28, so to get rid of that piece of law, equal age of consent for gay and heterosexual couples, so in the 1980s, it was 21 for gay couples, legal recognition for same-sex partnerships, protection against discrimination in the workplace and public services, and legal rights for transgender individuals.

So Alex is asking, "What methods did they use?" Pause and have a think.

So Stonewall worked closely with politicians to push for changes in the law.

This included meeting directly with MPs, ministers, and members of political parties to explain why LGBTQ+ rights mattered and what changes were needed.

They also submitted evidence to parliamentary committees and worked to influence political party manifestos.

They have also supported key legal cases that challenged discriminatory laws.

These included the age of consent, which used to be higher for gay men than for heterosexual couples, and also workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Stonewall also ran public awareness campaigns to educate people about LGBTQ+ issues.

They partnered with celebrities and worked with schools, businesses, and media outlets to promote equality and inclusivity.

They also produced detailed research and reports on the challenges that LGBTQ+ people face.

These included statistics and personal stories about discrimination in the workplace, bullying that was happening in schools, lack of healthcare access, and even hate crimes.

They used this evidence to put pressure on the Government, employers, and institutions to be more inclusive.

Let's have a check for understanding.

State four methods that Stonewall used to campaign for legislative change.

So you may have said some of these: meeting with MPs, submitting evidence to parliamentary committees, influencing party manifestos, supporting key legal cases, awareness campaigns, celebrity endorsements, publishing research, and using personal testimony.

Stonewall have been instrumental in ensuring lots of things, including an equal age of consent for gay and bisexual men, the end of Section 28 in 2003, LGBTQ+ people becoming free to serve openly in the Armed Forces, protection from discrimination at work, the right for same-sex couples to have civil partnerships, get married, and be legally recognised as parents, including the ability to adopt, and inclusive teaching in the National Curriculum.

This highlights how Stonewall's strategic campaigning has shaped the legal landscape in relation to LGBTQ+ rights.

Campaigning has been proven to have an impact on legislation.

Campaigning provides citizens with a way in which they can lobby decision-makers and speak truth to power.

True or false? Campaigning has been proven to have an impact on legislation.

Is that true? Is that false? And it's true.

And why? The suffrage movement and Stonewall both successfully campaigned for changes in legislation.

For Task B, I'd like you to choose either the women's suffrage movement or Stonewall's campaigns and explain how their campaigning impacted legislation.

Include some of the methods they used and the impact that these had.

So you may have chose to explain the impact that the women's suffrage movement had on legislation, and you might have included something like this: The women's suffrage movement used a range of methods to fight for equal voting rights.

The movement had two branches: the Suffragists, who used peaceful methods like petitions and lobbying MPs, and the Suffragettes, who used militant tactics, including chaining themselves to railings and smashing windows.

Although the militant methods divided public opinion, both branches raised awareness of women's lack of political rights and put pressure on politicians.

After decades of campaigning, laws finally changed.

In 1918, some women over 30 gained the vote, and by 1928, all women over 21 could vote on equal terms with men.

Their campaigning clearly helped push these changes in legislation.

Or you may have chose to explain the impact that the Stonewall campaign had on legislation, and you might have included: Stonewall is a charity that started in 1989 to fight against Section 28, a law that banned schools from promoting homosexuality.

They campaigned using a range of methods, like meeting with MPs, using celebrity endorsement, and sharing real-life stories and research to prove that discrimination was still a serious problem in the UK.

Their approach helped change public opinion and convinced politicians to act.

As a result, laws were passed to protect LGBTQ+ people, like the repeal of Section 28 in 2003, equal marriage in 2013, and protection from discrimination in schools and workplaces.

Stonewall's campaigning helped achieve these changes in legislation.

So in summary of the lesson "What does the law have to do with campaigning?" Law and campaigning are closely connected.

Some laws protect and strengthen people's right to campaign, such as the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, and laws giving equal voting rights.

However, other laws like the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act have been seen by some as limiting campaigning rights.

There are many examples of campaigns that have led to significant legislation changes.

These include the campaign for women's suffrage, which led to women being granted equal voting rights to men, and Stonewall's campaigns, which have strengthened equality laws for the LGBTQ+ community.

That brings us to the end of this lesson.

Well done for all your hard work, and I hope that you'll come back for some more Citizenship lessons in the future.