4. This would be the sort of law the Reviewer is meant to act as a bulwalk against in the aftermath of the kind of appalling terrorist attack we have just seen.

3. In giving this public response, the Reviewer risks legitimising a knee-jerk and disproportionate new terrorism law - further eroding the right to protest in the UK after years of it being under attack.

2. By not acknowledging this, the Independent Reviewer appeared to be describing a new regime that would incentivise governments to interpret terrorism law even more broadly where they wanted a reason to ban protests.

1. The discussion made no acknowledgement that the huge burden on police in protests currently is due to a political decision to proscribe a direct action group - huge numbers of police are now required to carry out mass arrests of peaceful protesters under terrorism law.

The article further argues that Labour seems to be following a similar trend in evading democratic scrutiny, despite election commitments to empowering Parliament. Its process for proscribing Palestine Action is a good example, particularly its withholding of information requested by the ISC 5/5

All govs manipulate the legislative process, and these mechanisms are not new. However, the article argues that the repeated reliance on them in relation to such a democratically significant set of legislation helped create a backdoor to facilitate Executive empowerment in the areas examined 4/5

Mechanisms of parliamentary marginalisation:
1: Avoiding pre-legislative scrutiny
2: Exploiting the parliamentary timetable
3: Legislative overload
4. Excessive reliance on skeleton bills
5. Failure to provide crucial info to parliament
6. Reliance on spurious claims in justifying changes 3/5

The relevant powers examined are those interfering with fundamental rights - including labour rights, protest rights, the right to not be tortured, and the right to liberty (including to have a judge decide whether the state detaining you is reasonable) 2/5