Matt McCarten wonders if the police bosses in Auckland actually read the cases they lose.
I feel some sympathy for Shahar Peer, an international tennis professional who happens to be Israeli, playing in the ASB Classic tennis tournament. Peace activists have been picketing her matches to draw attention to Israel apartheid policies against the Palestinian people.
Whatever your opinions on the tactics of the protest, we are a civil society based on laws that permit the right of free speech and the right to demonstrate whether the authorities or other citizens agree with the reasons or not.
In this case our police targeted several protest leaders, arresting them on trumped-up charges. It wasn't the protesters who were acting unlawfully; it was our legal enforcers. That is troubling. The police would have us believe that bad manners by protesters towards the plucky Peer and annoying the spectators at her tennis matches was sufficient cause to arrest participants and ban protest leaders from attending their own demonstrations.
On the first day of protests the police weren't present. By the time they did arrive, the protest was over, with people returning to their vehicles. When a protester holding a megaphone declined to give an assurance that it wouldn't be used in any future demonstration, police demanded he hand it to them. When he refused, he was arrested. It's unclear what exactly he was charged with. Whatever it is, it'll be laughed out of court.
The next day, police were out in force, instructing demonstrators to stand 40m from the venue and then forming a baton-wielding police line in front of them. Loud music was directed at the protesters to drown out speakers. When police commanders grew tired of that silliness, they sent in snatcher squads to grab and arrest the leaders, including John Minto.
After the police confiscated the megaphones to silence the protest, another leader, Janfree Wakim, was arrested for giving someone a whistle. When she was injured by the arresting officers, Wakim, a tiny woman in her 60s, was then charged with assault. Another protester who had been there for just three minutes was snatched for blowing a whistle.
The police tactics may give some opponents a sense of satisfaction. But the actions were immoral and illegal. They charged protesters with disorderly behaviour (interfering unduly with the right of other members of the public to use a space) and breach of the peace (starting or being likely to start a riot).
Neither will stand up to independent scrutiny. That's because the real reason for the arrests was because they were making a noise.
The police, it seems, conveniently interpret the law to mean you are allowed to protest as long as no one hears or sees you. They are wrong. In a 2006 case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was permissible for a citizen to annoy others in a public place while protesting and that the conduct can be irritating, ill-mannered or in bad taste. It recognised that protest often intends to cause irritation to draw attention to their message. In another case, the Supreme Court went further, ruling that the purpose of protest is to make someone listen to something they do not want to hear, and police can't arrest people for saying something loudly and repetitively. I wonder if the police bosses in Auckland actually read the cases they lose, or are aware it's the court's job to interpret the law, not theirs.
More important than the fracas at the tennis is the realisation we have a police force blatantly ignoring the Supreme Court and arresting protesters in an attempt to silence them.
Ironically, the protest would not have been closed down in Israel. That country prides itself on allowing raucous demonstrations and protest. Even Peer seems to have a better take on individual rights than our authorities do. When asked about the protest she responded "They're doing want they want. Everyone can do whatever they want."
PC Plod should make a note.
- HERALD ON SUNDAY
