Police repression on campus should concern everyone.
Ellie Stephenson is worries about the right to protest.
The riot squad at USyd on Wednesday. Photo credit: Aman Kapoor.
Wednesday’s socially distanced protests against course cuts and fee hikes faced a disturbing amount of police repression: student and staff protesters were detained, fined and arrested. Tens of police swarmed on campus, with riot police and police horses deployed to deal with peaceful student protests. This heavy-handed response is deeply unsettling.
The justification for the police presence and the penalties directed at protestors was public health. This does not stand up to scrutiny. Attendees were gathered in groups of less than 20, which is legal. They were wearing masks and using hand sanitiser. Those who felt unwell were asked not to attend. The protest occurred outside. The event had clearly worked hard to mitigate the risk of COVID-19. In any case, it is unclear how it became any safer when squads of police showed up.
Shutting down the protest is inconsistent with the rest of the Government’s COVID-19 strategy. The government recently announced that tens of thousands of people would be allowed to attend sports games, with stadiums permitted to move to 50% capacity. Anyone who has caught a peak hour bus or visited a shopping centre has seen people in far higher density and with less PPE than campus protests. Most strikingly, students and staff have been attending classes and lectures with more people than assembled in Wednesday’s contingents.
With no substantial public health argument backing up their response, the police rely upon the COVID regulation that 20 or more people cannot gather with a common purpose. Wednesday’s rally was separated into groups with different purposes - individual faculty contingents and other groups on campus. Nonetheless, the rule was deemed to apply.
What does this mean for the right to protest in NSW? Well, it’s worrying at best. We are faced with a double standard where recreational sport and shopping are welcomed, but protesting in similar or smaller numbers is condemned. The common purpose rule undermines our right to assemble inexcusably, including in the very place we work and study.
People on both sides of politics have, when convenient for them, attempted to shut down critique of this sort of government overreach by pointing to the pandemic. That argument should convince no one. It’s true that some COVID-19 restrictions are necessary and important. People should take the pandemic seriously and respect others’ health, especially people who are very vulnerable to the illness. But being responsible about COVID is very different from allowing the government to roll out unnecessary laws under the guise of responding to a crisis.
We should always be willing and able to give laws the scrutiny they deserve. Not doing so risks an unacceptable erosion of our rights. The fact is, the restrictions on protesting - much like Victoria’s curfew - are unnecessary and illogical. Regardless of whether you agree with the protestors’ cause, their suppression should be something you oppose in principle.
This also fits into a broader context of a pandemic response which criminalises non-compliance, rather than providing public health support. Like many issues, criminalising people often targets the most vulnerable. Where possible, we should be pursuing harm minimisation. Providing people with PPE and social safety nets is more likely to protect their health than bringing them into contact with police, exorbitant fines or jail.
Why does the right to protest matter? On a basic level, a protest is an expression of an unheard voice. It is how people can communicate their message when they’re not being represented in other ways. We should care about the right to protest if we value people’s rights to express themselves and speak their mind. This is especially important to marginalised and minority groups, who may struggle to have a say in other ways. In the case of Wednesday’s action, students facing huge fee hikes and brutal course cuts were given a platform to communicate their frustration and anger about government policy which disadvantages them.
At their best, protests can fundamentally disrupt society in a way which accelerates change. Making it politically inconvenient to pursue an unfair or harmful policy has frequently improved society in their past. We should value the legacy of successful protest movements in delivering the society we have today. That means rejecting apathy and welcoming dissenting voices.
A dismissive attitude towards protest - calling it indulgent, annoying, and ineffective - is short-sighted. You might not always particularly care about the issues others are championing. Some protests may be silly or ill-advised. Regardless, the right to protest is worth protecting. Weaponising the pandemic to take it away needs to be firmly rejected.