Today’s news that Victoria Police has abandoned their six-month CBD stop and search for weapons trial, and rescinded the ban on face masks, is an assault on our freedoms.
We are not referring to the rights of people to protest, as we have no difficulty with that; however, when the demonstrations of a few impact the broader community, interfering with the community’s right to freedom of movement and to participate in community activity, then something has got to be done about it.
Sacrificing the community’s freedoms for a few is neither the answer nor reasonable or fair.
And all this hullabaloo about loss of freedoms because demonstrators can’t wear masks is an abomination without equal.
We have not seen one mask that furthers or supports the cause being demonstrated, so there is only one reasonable conclusion, and that is the masks are used to hide the demonstrators’ identity, and there is only one reason that they would hide their identity, is to avoid the risk of prosecution for illegal acts.
In other words, there is no plausible reason for a mask to be worn.
Whether the cancellation of the trial was due to imminent legal proceedings in the Federal Court, we don’t know, but the timing strongly suggests it was.
The court action is being taken by two plaintiffs represented by the Human Rights Law Centre. From a community perspective, it’s like ‘rubbing salt into a wound’ because we understand that the HRLC is a government-funded body. Yes, we are paying for the two Plaintiffs to challenge what is a reasonable action by the Police to protect the whole community.
Are we naive to expect that Government-funded entities should put the rights and freedoms of the broader community ahead of two individuals? Our legal system is being manipulated at our cost, and we are supposed to accept that.
The case is reported to be based on bans and Police actions that,
‘Breached the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities’ right to peaceful assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, non-discrimination, privacy and freedom of expression.’
They were also claiming the police powers over face mask coverings at protests are unconstitutional as they ‘interfere with rights to political communication.’
Picking that case apart,
- Nobody, particularly the Police, has, as far as we know, stymied or interfered with peaceful assembly since COVID, unless that assembly unreasonably impacts the broader community. That impact can be because of violence or disruption to the freedom of other citizens.
- Freedom from arbitrary arrest is a ‘hairy old chestnut’ trotted out and applies only to countries without a legal system as robust as ours.
- Discrimination is also a concept trotted out in weak arguments to give the argument veritas.
- Privacy and freedom of expression are two conflicting concepts. If you want privacy and then flaunt your identity in a public discourse, you cannot expect to retain the privacy you voluntarily relinquish, and freedom of expression has never been challenged.
- To argue that face masks and coverings are unconstitutional is indeed a spurious argument, as unless the mask or covering was placed involuntarily, it is the purview of the person with the face covering.
If that covering interferes with political communication, take it off.
We fail to see how the deliberate actions of an individual who is concerned for their rights can overtly create and apply breaches to themselves.
This legal action, again reminding readers at our cost, should and we hope will be an action of futility, and we implore the Courts to treat it as such.
We call on the Premier to make good on her promise to implement laws to facilitate the banning of masks and to instruct the Attorney General to sit down with the Chief Commissioner and prepare legislation to address matters that should be unlawful.
The Police role is to protect the broader community, but they cannot be expected to do that without the elected government’s legislative powers and tools to do the job.
Fix it now, because failure today promotes anarchy in the future, and anarchy will create the necessity for a Police state.
We had a taste of what a Police State would be like during COVID. Heaven forbid government inaction pushes us down that path again.
Simple resolution..If protesters can be masked to protect their identities, then all police both uniform and plain clothes on the front line of the protests, should be granted the same rights. Remove name tags and wear masks. Let’s see how the HRLC like that idea……
I like the way you think, Ian Nichols. Can you imagine the bleating, whinging and beating of chests if that happened. But it won’t.
If as you suggest the trial ends because of a Federal Court challenge, I would be disappointed. The Human Rights suit is a weak one and without merit. Should Vic Police take it on, I suggest they would have a better than a verge chance of success. Why would we choose the weaken our position by abandoning the trial?? I suggest cowardice. This crap would not have occurred whilst many previous CCP’s including KG were running the show (and without political interference)
I’m sick to death of the Victorian Premier, pulling the strings and sending us hurtling towards anarchy.
“The case is reported to be based on bans and Police actions that,
‘Breached the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities’ right to peaceful assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, non-discrimination, privacy and freedom of expression.’”
Vicpol should just ignore the Charter, after all the Gov and Vicpol totally ignored it during the covid restrictions and protests, so why worry about it now?
Here we are again, bowing down to the minority at a cost to the majority. The VCHR calling out “arbitrary arrest and detention etc”. Now, especially now, is when the Police need the power to search those they deem as suspicious. The crime in Victoria is at a level never encountered before, with a high proportion of bladed weapons used, so if a suspect can be caught and the weapon confiscated than that’s a massive win. If the suspect is not in possession of anything illegal then there should be no problem.
The same with face coverings. If a protester is going to act in a peaceful, non violent manner then why hide his or her identity? There has never been an issue with face coverings been banned from being worn in a Bank so why are protests different?
It must be very frustrating for Victoria Police to have to attend protests such as the weekly Pro Palestine CBD ones knowing full well that they and the public are at risk of bodily harm by a masked offender(s) that, as a result of the masks will be harder to identify and arrest.
There is so much that Victoria has suffered under the current and previous Premier that this is just another “Why am I surprised???”
Mike Bush, can we please have discussions at Spring St in regards of re-installing the “stop and search” and mask issues.
This needs to be challenged by Vic Pol and not just roll over, the outcome is worth the fight. I keep saying it , what about the rights of us all in freedom of movement and trade by the majority of the community which is continually disregarded at each protest. These dogooders can’t have it both ways!! The legislation is there and finally a Chief Commissioner who is the first to invoke the 6month sanction which has always been there when it was drafted. The civil libertarians argue families will be stopped and searched going to to the tennis or evening show. Are they bloody serious!!!!!!! We need to look at the power of the people as we have just seen in obtaining a Royal Commission for the Bondi incident not just from the minority.
Spot on Charlie!