Recently on social media there has been a large uproar about the Victorian parliament’s introduction of the Summary Offences and Sentencing Ammendment Bill. This gives the right for police to “move on” protesters and hence disrupt protests in Victoria. Check out “Applauding democracy – it is a riot!” over on Counteract.org.au.
Protest is free speech, so being able to break up protests is breaking up free speech, right?
Wrong.
Muffins on facebook don’t really know what free speech means.
People often misunderstand how the right to protest, free speech and democracy work, often thinking in an entitlement mentality, “free speech is important for me.” The problem is that, by seeing each other as groups of tribes in the one society, we see fit to deny rights to others that we would want for our own tribe. The issue with “free speech”, “freedom to protest”, “freedom of association” and “freedom of assembly” is that, in claiming such rights, we fail to account for the fact that others want to claim the same rights. Those others we dislike, we abhor or detest.
Free speech means you are allowed to speak your mind, and hence open yourself up to criticism. It is the noose that you give to your political opponents as a gift.
Free speech already has limitations, such as against slander and incitement of violence. Disgracefully, Free Speech also is limited by “insult and humiliation” because of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in Australia, which goes against the very tenet of free speech. It already has a chilling effect on debate, where activists use the call “racist” and the shadow of Section 18C to shut down debate on topics that would place them under uncomfortable scrutiny and criticism.
The Amendments in this bill do restrict free speech further… but they protect another important liberty, that is not subjective like “offence.”
Freedom of movement is important too, that a citizen should be able to conduct their lawful business (e.g. going to work) freely and unimpeded.
So no, Freedom of Speech isn’t the freedom to block people from going to work, doing lawful business. It is not permission to picket and blockade lawful activity. Freedom of speech does not mean violent protests should be allowed to escalate, such as attacking individuals en masse attempting to cross a picket line. You can make as much protest as you like, just stand out of the way so that people can read your sign before they do business with the person you detest. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can speak anywhere, nor does it mean that someone else has to subsidize your soapbox. You can rent out a warehouse and speak there, but you cannot mandate your enemy open a warehouse with a lectern for you so that you an tear him down.
A protest will definitely be less effective if it isn’t blocking “scabs” from going to work, but the rights of the protesters have to be balanced against the rights of the people they are protesting against.
Already there were high profile cases where the authorities refused to intervene:
- Baida Chicken factory pickett November 2011, where 80 police were routed attempting to break up a picket declared illegal by the Supreme Court, where contract laborers for Baida were being obstructed from going to work by unionists and protesters of other affiliations (such as animal rights activists) who had no representation at the plant
- Occupy Melbourne setting up in City Square October 2011, which damaged the commercial viability of City Square leasees
- Epping Wholesale Market, which was costing Bovis Lend Lease $120,000 per day against unlawful industrial action
In these cases the police were ineffective at stopping protesters obstructing lawful activity.
These are not covered under current trespass laws, as private property rightly does not extend to public land around such properties. The unions such as the CFMEU have been quite cunning in their observance of the law, such as insisting on union stewards who are “safety inspectors” who can shut down a site for a “safety breach” at a moment’s notice- an interesting way to conduct guerrilla warfare and rolling strikes against “bastard bosses” such as Grocon. They portray protesters as “concerned citizens” rather than “members” to avoid drawing the ire and jurisdiction of the Industrial relations watchdog that sanctions strike action. They even picket sites on which they do not have strong representation as payback for companies that choose not to hire union labor.
So when I see platitudes on social media, it is not so much about obstructing “freedom of speech” as much as curtailing the perceived right of professional activists to civil disobedience. These protesters see the system as the problem, and want to disrupt or destroy it. Stopping this activism gets a lot of noses out of joint.
Try doing real work, and you side with the “greedy corporations.” They don’t “give back to society”- code that means that they don’t give enough free stuff to protesters.
Protest as much as you like, express as much free speech as you like, be present and make noise. But let free citizens continue with their lawful business, and allow them to be productive. Let the tall poppies grow, because the rule of law that protects lawful business is what decides where jobs are made.
The post Protesting Is Not Always Free Speech appeared first on Controversial News, Controversial Current Events | Intentious the Internet's Home of Controversial News.
