The right to protest, in danger

In a trial there is a certain liturgy for noting an objection. I recall the anecdote of a ceremonial lawyer who made his protests in a energetic and respectful”, he replied, mockingly, “let it not be recorded that this of Protest is not codified in a single law, as it brings together a series of freedoms (expression, assembly, association...). Like Archimedes' lever, it multiplies forces to protect human dignity in an inhospitable world. If it weren't for the suffragettes, women wouldn't be able to vote. If it weren't for the strikers of La Canadenca, we would work twelve hours. Little is said about recent conquests, such as those of the housing movement. Some advances are strategic: the halt of a large part of the evictions, the regulation of rents, the reservation of protected housing, or the promotion of the cooperative model. Other tactical successes go unnoticed, such as the rent strike that has recovered for the public park the HPO of La Caixa, the first owner in Catalonia. But the great triumph is moral. If Jesus Christ, in an iconic scene, throws the merchants out of the temple, the housing movement strives to drive out speculators and overturn the narrative: housing as a right, not as a business. With protest, discontent is expressed, but power is also controlled and hope is instilled for a better future. Therefore, it can only be limited under strict conditions of necessity, legality, and proportionality. This implies curbing the excessive use of police force and the criminalization of peaceful protest.

The world situation is, however, devastating. In France, the repression against the yellow vests left a sad toll of mutilation: twenty-three people lost an eye and five lost a hand. In the USA, where the defense of freedom of expression, assembly, and press is in the First Amendment, we have already seen how ICE agents deal with citizens "armed" with a whistle. Or how they spray defenseless demonstrators (including children) with pepper gas, according to a chilling report from ProPublica. Here at home, it has also been used against seated protesters with their arms down, under the excuse of clearing an access. Presenting protest as a nuisance or a threat is the perfect alibi for a virulent reaction. Fortunately, the images of the assault on a sexagenarian teacher contradict the police union's version. Justifying thugs is not defending security: it is advocating for violence.

Intimidatory maneuvers to silence dissent are not always physical. The Trump administration is eroding human rights to unprecedented limits. For example, it revoked more than 6,000 visas in 2025 for political activism identified through social media surveillance. The misuse of intelligence tools is on the rise. In the Kennedy case, in the United Kingdom, the agent who infiltrated environmental groups became sympathetic to the cause and testified in favor of the defendants, who were unjustly accused, but the romanticization of happy endings should not cloud critical judgment. Infiltrating police into assemblies of workers or social movements, which are not criminal organizations, is grotesque because it is illegal and illegitimate, not just clumsy and inefficient. To avoid addressing the political problem, the social model, an operational problem, a public order problem, is manufactured. Insecurity is spoken of to avoid speaking of inequality. In a slogan from teacher demonstrations – “Fewer police and more teachers” – Pythagoras resonates: “Educate children and you will not have to punish men.” Contemplating alternative (counterfactual) scenarios includes deliberating and dialoguing, instead of repressing. The containment of public disorder cannot involve militarization or the uncontrolled use of potentially lethal weapons, but rather the training of police forces in de-escalation and mediation techniques.

The democratic shell of old Europe retains its appearance but suffers from osteoporosis. The United Kingdom announced it would amend public order legislation in response to repeated demonstrations against the Palestinian genocide. I wonder how many demonstrations are sufficient and not excessive. And if it is the governmental authority that should draw the perimeter of rights. The idea that demonstrations can be prohibited considering their “cumulative effect” should worry us. Some jurists can be quite imaginative when they exhaust classical resources. In our country, the charges against the social leaders of the Procés were also cooked up with a frothy ingredient, environmental violence, very perverse when it targets peaceful resistance and civil disobedience.

Among the sparks of hope in justice is the anti-SLAPP directive to curb abusive lawsuits against activists or journalists. The Spanish state has launched two timid initiatives to transpose it. Meanwhile, Greenpeace stands up to a large oil company in the so-called lawsuit of the century. It has overcome the preliminary phase in the Amsterdam courts and has launched a campaign with the short SLAPP Suit with Javier Bardem and Yasmin Finney. It defends not only its organization, but also the right to demand explanations and accountability from those who pollute.

Freedom, according to Orwell, consists of being able to say that two and two make four. If we conquer this freedom, we conquer all others. I want to believe, like the poet Eugenio Montale, that “history is not the devastating bulldozer they say. It leaves tunnels, crypts, holes, and hiding places. There are those who survive”.