Redressing Imbalances

Good Moonshine in West Australia

It is received wisdom in NZ that most Australians are feral.  They are like distant relatives, coming from a questionable branch of the family, who have spent too much time in the mountains sipping moonshine.  We exaggerate--but you get the idea.

Imagine, then, the expostulations of disbelief when it became known that West Australia is considering laws to reign in protest activity.  How backward.  How primitive.  How miscegenetic.  Au contraire.  How enlightened!  All of a sudden we are finding new respect for our Aussie cousins, at least those who dwell in the West.

The United Nations has called on the West Australian Government to withdraw controversial new legislation that imposes harsh penalties on protesters.  The proposed laws were first introduced into Parliament in March 2015, and the Government insists it will only target radical protesters using devices like chains or thumb locks to block or stop lawful activities. [ABC]

The fact that the UN "special rapporteur on freedom of expression" is objecting to the proposed law is a clue that WA may be on the right track.
 In particular, the UN and others believe the law will fall heavily upon environmental protesters:

But the UN said it would "result in criminalising lawful protests and silencing environmentalists and human rights defenders".  If the bill passes, it would go against Australia's international obligations under international human rights law, including the rights to freedom of opinion and expression as well as peaceful assembly and association," the UN Human Rights Office said in a statement.

"The bill would criminalise a wide range of legitimate conduct by creating criminal offences for the acts of physically preventing a lawful activity and possessing an object for the purpose of preventing a lawful activity.  For example, peaceful civil disobedience and any non-violent direct action could be characterised as 'physically preventing a lawful activity'."

Let's be clear.  If we were to stand outside a building and block the door so that people could not enter the building to get to work, or clean the building, or keep appointments with people in the building we would risk being charged with criminal nuisance or trespass.  But if we held up a sign that said, "Kill global warming" or some such sentiment while we stopped people from entering the building, a higher law of freedom (our freedom, not anyone else's) suddenly comes into play.

This is a nonsense and a flagrant contradiction.  It is hypocrisy on steroids.  The West Australians have it dead right.  The UN and its rent-a-mobs have it dead wrong.

Doubtless the law would need to be carefully written.  Doubtless there would be potential for abuse, particularly in a world where preferences suddenly become demand rights before which all other members of society must genuflect.  Doubtless there must be checks and balances.  But we believe the balance in these things checked out long ago--in favour of the mob interfering with others going about their lawful business.  In other words, protests have been given special treatment, special favours, and the rights of ordinary citizens have been traduced.

In New Zealand recently we had a madcap gathering in Auckland protesting against against New Zealand signing a free trade agreement.  The protesters deliberately impeded traffic on city streets, causing gridlock for some time.  They were preventing others from going about their lawful business; the protesters were traducing the human rights of others.  Under the law in Western Australia, such protesters would be liable to arrest and fines and even prison were the breach sufficiently egregious.

Maybe we could learn something from our Aussie cousins about protecting the human rights of everyone in a far more balanced way than what is presently the case.  They have some good moonshine in West Australia it seems.