OPINION: The rights of a man to have freedom of speech, picket or protest are almost untouchable!


People need to understand that the rights of a man to have freedom of speech, picket or protest are almost untouchable.! Even under a state of emergency he still has the right to demonstrably protest without being interfered by the authorities!! For the uneducated, non readers and biasedly programmed nut heads, read an extract of your rights as stipulated by the international human rights laws governing protests even during a pandemic or state of emergency:

Protest rights in the pandemic context 

COVID-19 does pose a serious threat to public health, so some temporary and proportionate restrictions on gatherings and people’s movement have been – and may remain – necessary. However, democracy doesn’t stop in a pandemic and experience in Australia and internationally has shown that protests can continue to take place safely.

To be lawful and consistent with democratic and human rights principles, any restrictions on protest rights must be limited to what is strictly necessary to protect public health and remain in force only for as long as is absolutely necessary – the pandemic must not be used as a gateway to impose lasting restrictions on protest rights.

Proportionality and reasonableness must also underpin the application of any restrictions.They must be enforced in a way that is fair, with common sense and discretion, and without the use of excessive force or violence.

Governments’ responsibility 

Blanket bans on protest are unjustified and potentially unconstitutional. Governments have a responsibility – recognised under international human rights law – to take reasonable steps to proactively facilitate safe and peaceful protest activity. [4]

Reasonable steps governments should consider taking include:

  • distributing masks and hand sanitizer to protestors;
  • closing off roads and public spaces to give protestors space to socially distance; and
  • recognising and making clearly defined allowances for protests organised in accordance with health restrictions and COVID-safe practices.


Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]


  1. Guy/ Gal since you wrongly used Australia as an example, let me suggest you read “Australia Covid: Arrests at anti-lockdown protests, 24th July, BBC. See this important excerpt:
    “The NSW Police Force recognizes and supports the rights of individuals and groups to exercise their rights of free speech and peaceful assembly, however, today’s protest is in breach of the current Covid-19 Public Health Orders,” a statement from the force read.”

    Note also Australia is now back under lock down, and their “sluggish” vaccine rollout has been blamed. Only 22% percent of its citizens (over 16) have received both jabs, while for ANU, its double that 44%. Let me suggest after your protest on Thursday (perhaps even before for your own safety), if you have not done so already, that you head to one of the vaccination locations, show real commitment to your nation and get vaccinated.

    • Tenman….feel free to get all the jabs you endemic body can resist and enjoy.

      If you decide kill your self do you want others follow your lead?,leave each one decide their way to live and that’s it’s!!! Your and us not coming from the same mom

  2. Let me CONGRATULATE Mr. POMPEY for explaining the LAW that govern PROTESTS / MARCHES and LARGE GATHERINGS on POINTE FM last evening. Mr. POMPEY said that the PROTEST / MARCH / LARGE GATHERING on Sunday was ILLEGAL . Why Charles Tabor who is a TRAINED LAWYER did not know that.?…It shows that Charles Tabor is Partisan UPP HYPOCRITE and very DISHONEST.
    Wonderful Job Mr.Pompey.

    • You needed Pompey’s opinion to get you to understand that Tabor tells us only what Lovell spits in his mouth? Recall at one time Tabor argued that the state of emergency had to be in place in order for government to do things like impose a curfew. A few days later Lovell provides an opposite opinion and there is Tabor, flipping on a dime, calling persons ignorant for not agreeing with Lovell. Its only when he was called out he then claimed he had a change of mind, after also calling persons silly for not agreeing with his first stance. Further Learnt from that experience that Tabor is akin to the scribes and pharisees in the new testament (hypocrites and liars). Think you well know this is characteristic of UPP highest leadership

  3. “Tabor” is not a real lawyer! He and Chaku Waku are in the same fight boat heading over to Redonda to look for clients over there.

  4. I think we miss the point by framing the discussion simply around the legality of
    Sundays march.
    The more important questions to ask are:
    a. was the police response proportionate? and
    b. were the tactics use “good policing” ?

    I would say “no” to both these questions:
    From all indications Sunday’s event, prior the police intervention, posed no immediate threat to National Security or Public Order. Rather, it was the police response that created the disorder. Were it not for police use of teargas and other brute-force tactics, then it is very likely that Sunday’s protest would have concluded as a “non-event”.
    Moreover, while on its face the protest might seem illegal, the question of its legality is best determined in the court of law. And the police could have simply arresting and charging the event planners after the event, if in the opinion of the police, laws were broken. In other words they could have done what they are attempting to do now, but without the chaos, disorder and public uneasiness that they created.

    It would seem to me that the objective of the police was, not to maintain public order, but to send a message to those protesting. To teach them – and the rest of us a lesson.
    Well the lesson has been learnt. And I would argue the trust and respect for police diminished as a result of the disorder they created last Sunday. At least in my eyes.

    • What is considered National Security threat? In a pandemic the spread of the decease called Covid is considered a National Security thread. And protocol all over the world has learned that large gatherings of crowds are areas of concern of the spreading of this decease. Therefore, government has issued protocols and a State of Emergency that limits the gatherings of large crowds. So large crowds are a National Security thread. It’s not about whether the crowd was peaceful or not. It was a cluster of people that was illegal under the State of Emergency. People, please get it in your head. That is why the Opposition is against the State of Emergency. They cannot gather together in large crowds. They cannot hold public meetings. They have to hold ZOOM meetings.

Comments are closed.