Liberalism is a school of thought in political and legal theory that places an emphasis on

the primacy of individual liberty within the framework of a society's political and legal
institutions. The term "liberalism" was not in use during the time of Hobbes, Locke,
Hume, Smith, or Montesquieu, the founders of the liberal philosophical tradition.
Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, this concept rose to prominence and expanded
its sphere of influence, eventually becoming the preeminent political ideology of the
Western world in all of its myriad iterations. As its name suggests, liberalism is a political
ideology whose primary focus is preserving and expanding the individual freedoms of
people. This is the primary preoccupation of liberals. The concept of liberalism, which
acknowledges the significance of the individual as well as the validity of power and
authority within a state, and which is often cited as a contributing factor to the genesis
of historical upheavals such as the French Revolution. The idea that the government
should be answerable to the law for the actions that they take is central to the liberal
worldview and serves as one of its guiding principles. Nevertheless, the application of
this approach has been put in jeopardy due to the existence of additional fundamental
principles.
Hobbes characterised liberty as a "silent of the rules" and the absence of "external
barriers to mobility." The individual is to be given space to pursue his or her own goals
and make decisions free from interference from outside sources. According to Berlin's
theory, freedom is something that belongs to individuals and is a domain in which one
can operate without being constrained in any way. A person is said to have the level of
freedom that corresponds to the degree to which he or she is able to speak, worship,
travel, and marry as they so choose without interference from other individuals.
According to Berlin, an individual is not free if they are prohibited from doing what they
would normally do by other people. This idea was developed with the intention of
mediating the interaction that exists between the person and the state. Hobbes and
Locke both argue that the state is justified in protecting life and property, despite the
fact that there is some disagreement on the amount to which this mediation should
take place. In spite of the fact that the rule seems straightforward, the state always acts
in their own best interests rather than the interests of the individual.
The combat for the protection of individual rights and liberties from infringement by any
person, be it the government or fellow citizens, is one that is being fought fiercely in
today's modern society. A response to this problem is provided by liberalism in the form
of an answer, which is the advocacy for the protection of personal freedom. A theory
that explains the purpose and efforts committed towards the protection of the
aforementioned individual freedom is referred to as liberalism. Liberalism is both a
concept and an ideology in the field of political science. The protection of individual
liberty against infringement or violation by a government is the most important
component of liberalism in today's society, and it is also its most prominent attribute. As
a result, the primary concentration should now be directed into the operations of the
government. When it comes to liberalism, advocating for individual liberty could mean
living in the best possible circumstances, depending on the part that one's government
plays in their daily life. There is either no role at all, a very little role, or a somewhat big
function.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler and others [2021] UKSC 23 ("Ziegler") involved
a protest against one of the world's largest arms expo. Appellants opposed the arms fair
and trade. They lay down on the Excel Centre road and affixed lockboxes. Appellants
were charged with "wilful blockage of a highway without lawful authorization or reason"
First-instance judge evaluated appellants' Articles 10-11 ECHR rights at trial. These
Articles ensure free speech and peaceful assembly. The trial judge ruled that the
appellants had a "lawful excuse" and acquitted them. The Supreme Court approved
Ziegler's appeal, and the appealed court's conviction was overturned.
The primary argument on merits was whether the demonstrators' behaviour was
protected by section 137 of the 1980 Act, "where the willful obstruction on other
highway users is more than de minimis and bans or is capable of stopping them from
moving along the highway." The second issue the apex court considered was whether
demonstrators' deliberate physical obstruction was a legitimate cause for section 137 of
the Highways Act 1980, and if police constraints on the obstruction were reasonable
under Article 10(2) and 11(2) of the ECHR.
"Proportionality evaluation at trial before an independent impartial tribunal depends on
relevant elements being shown beyond reasonable doubt and the court being sure that
interference with Articles 10 and 11 was necessary," the court said. Consider police
perception and action.
Paternalistic laws force residents to enhance health or prevent harm. Restricting a
citizen's actions because they potentially harm others is not paternalistic. Legal
paternalism bothers liberals. He said paternalism hurts his humanity. Liberals oppose
paternalism. John Stuart Mill's "damage principle" asserts "his own good, bodily or
moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Liberals defend legal paternalism.
Following these ideas of liberalism, it can be said that Ziegler and others have the right
to protest, and it is a right of freedom of an individual to express himself and prevent
activities and laws that can hurt his/her fellow citizen. Ziegler and others protested
under freedom of expression and assembly, which are natural rights under liberalism.
The Court emphasised that the location and duration of the protest, actual public
interference, previous notification and cooperation with the police or prior awareness of
the authorities, and the extent to which the protest infringes domestic law are all
important criteria. Lashmankin v. Russia (57818/09) and Balçik v. Turkey (25/02)
(February 29, 2008). According to the Court, relevant factors include that the plaintiffs'
action was intended to be a peaceful gathering and caused no disorder; did not involve
the commission of any offence other than the alleged section 137 offence; carefully
targeted vehicles heading to the fair; and did not completely obstruct the highway.
Since other routes were available for cars delivering to the Excel Centre during the
demonstration, there was no considerable interruption.

In respect to liberalism, Ziegler and company have the right to free expression and
assembly without fear. This is the beauty of liberalism ideology; it allows the individual
to voice his opinions without fear of the state.

The liberal worldview recognises the importance of the individual while recognizing
power and authority within a state, as seen in the situation at hand, where Zieglar had
the right to demonstrate but the firm against whom he was protesting also had the right
to exhibit the weaponry and ammunition. This demonstrates the beauty of liberalism,
where everyone has free speech. No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to
freedom and expression, even against the state, but within the law.
Liberal neutralists believe lawmaking should be founded on morally neutral logic. This
claim suggests that parliamentarians should be neutral on all moral problems or what is
good for humans. John Rawls says the government can't decide moral issues. "Ronald
Dworkin argues that government should be impartial toward notions of the good," the
good life. These generalisations are often tempered and limited. Neutralist liberals
argue that while lawmakers should be impartial regarding the good, they may base their
decisions on principles of fairness and moral rightness. Neutralist liberalism is more
appealing if it allows government to utilise noncoercive tactics to promote specific
values; the neutrality thesis is sometimes phrased in language implying that state
neutrality concerning the good is essential only in implementing coercive law.

In the matter at hand, the Court ruled that the appellants properly used their Articles 10
and 11 rights and that the prosecution failed to prove that the defendant's use of the
roadway was excessive. Therefore, the appellants' highway obstruction was not a crime.
The Supreme Court overturned the national courts' ruling and reinstated the appellants'
dismissal. Lady Arden wrote in a concurring opinion that courts interpret section 137 in
light of the ECHR and ECtHR jurisprudence. "Under this reasoning, the state must show
demonstrators a certain degree of tolerance, and it's recognised that protesters can
obstruct the highway in exercising their Article 11 right. Ziegler reminds us that
combining freedom of expression and assembly with the common interest is
challenging, but it's evident that the liberal concept of the rule of law adheres to
liberalism's basis: protection of the individual but prevalence of other constitutional
doctrines.