The police are predictably angry at yesterday's historic Supreme Court decision defending and expanding the right to protest, with Police Association president Greg O'Connor saying that it would encourage people to protest at the police. And? But where he goes completely off the rails is with this:
Police officers were now asking how Supreme Court judges would react if similar protests happened outside their homes by people they had sentenced, he said."Supreme Court judges, fortunately for them, tend to live behind nice big walls in leafy suburbs, and police officers are encouraged to live in the communities they police," O'Connor said.
"Supreme Court judges would be very quickly demanding action if people they had sentenced started protesting outside their houses."
In case O'Connor hadn't noticed, it's already happening. But unlike him, our judges are willing to apply the law and its principles, rather than abusing their authority for their own convenience.
16 comments:
I've been pondering on this issue with a bit of angst for the last few days and whether there is a line to draw between what is exercising freedom to protest against a public figure and where that might become an invasion of personal privacy.
I'm not quite sure exactly where I sit with it at the moment, but my thoughts have been drifting around my abhorence with the paparazzi and their so-called freedom to pursue celebrities when they are living their personal lives outside of their role of "celebrity". I have also been pondering on the Camp Casey protest which I followed religiously on Cindy Sheehan's blog at Huffington Post. I was enthusiatically in favour of the Camp Casey protest outside Bush's texas ranch and I never even considered for a moment that it was a violation on Bush's privacy. Maybe I am showing myself to be a hypocrite in this, but it is commonly known that Bush conducts his political business from home during his rather frequent and lengthy holidays there.
This case of the policeman however, I feel was a violation of the his right to privacy in the home. As much as I am passionately in favour of freedom of speech and the right to protest, I do not think that there is any legitmate grounds to be holding protests outside a persons private residence and subject their family to something like that which would be terribly stressful and probably downright frightening to their kids - not to mention the impact on their neighbours.
Any person who holds a public job most typically has a public place of work and my opinion is that that is a perfectly legitimate place to set up a protest, even if they are not even there at the time. I would feel quite rightfully horrified if I heard that any of our NZ public officials were being harassed this way at their place of residence and that CYFS Watch website creeped me out just as much.
No matter how vile the actions of a public official or how famous some hollywood celebrity, they should be entitled to the right to leave their work at work and not have their private lives invaded by the paparazzi or some bunch of disgruntled religious loonies like the Exclusive Bretheren - oh hang on, hasn't that already happened here? :-/
I dread to say it here, but in this instance I think O'Connor makes a very good point. Not all of us are privileged enough to live in cosy estates with security fences that buffer us from the outside world.
Posted by zANavAShi : 5/05/2007 04:40:00 PM
I disagree strongly. The level of the protest was minor in terms of duration and intensity. The language was not described as rude.
NZ and other democracies are easily able to accommodate such actions. We all live in a society where other people undertake actions that offend us or intrude into our home or office. It is part of a tolerant democracy.
Noise, from playgrounds, children yelling, concerts, traffic, etc intrudes into the home, and often at much higher levels and for longer than occurred in this case. Take the example of a high decibel rock concert, for perhaps two hours, at night, preventing sleep.
What you are really saying is that the content is of concern, and that is to sanction content or viewpoint, something which must not be allowed in a democracy.Or you are suggesting that the neighbours and children ought not to be exposed to it. Again, that is directed at content.
And children and neighbours can be exposed to protest (aganst their parents) via media reporting, school friends etc. Indeed, children could be at home, turn on the TV and see in the news coverage of a protest against their parents, conducted elsewhere.
It must be remembered that if the protest was indimitidating or offensive it could have been legitimately stopped. The case started out as one of intimidation, but it was found that the protest was not intimidating.
To an extent, I agree with the tenor of your paprazzi comment. I think that their pursuits go to far, but that is a separate issue. Their actions, which occur daily and which are highly intrusive, ought in some cases to be limited, if it amounts to harassment. There are remedies for harassment in NZ.
The location analysis is wrong. Why should the subject of protest be afforded protection of the home vis a vis protest, with the result that others (eg in the city centre) are subjected to the protest. Further, given the mixed nature of city (business and residence) any protest will almost certainly occur outside someones home.
Further, why does the first rung on the ladder of state intervention have to be criminal. Why not simply allow civil remedies if a protest is unduly intrusive.
O'Connor does not make a good point in relation to Police. The Police protect their own from protests (as in this case) whereas there is a very slow response rate to serious crime reported by the public.
Further, last year there were protests outside the homes of Family Court judges and lawyers, all of which occurred without Police intervention, or the need for that. Democracy prevailed.
Thus ironically O'Connor is making an incorrect comment, and gaining support for it. I cannot imagine that he would not have been aware of the Family Court judge home protests, given the media attention they received last year.
If the Police conduct was of a consistently high standard, then there would be less cause for protest. The most recent inquiry into failures by the Police to investigate allegations agains their members (the Nicolas inquiry) is an example.
Of course, ironically, the Police can take prosections, some of which are found on appeal to have been highly suspect and result from poor investigations. The impact of those on the subjects - I note I am not one ;-)- I am sure is greater than the impact on this individual officer, yet there is no compensation for poor prosecutions nor the consequences for the subject of those, which sometimes include prison. I seen that DNA evidence has not cleared the 200th person in USA of crimes for which they were wrongly convicted. Some are still in prison, and others have been subject to the death penalty.
Protest is an important aspect, and the value of one person, exercising a minor protest in this manner, may be one of the few ways in which an individuals voice can be heard in this information rich and media controlled world.
If the Police were to be protected, then why not other officals. Why not all citizens. We are then at the thin edge of the wedge. How, given the mixed residential / business nature of cities do you conduct a protest that is not outside someones hoome.
And why is it thought that a protest outside a home, for 15-30 minutes, is more intrusive than one day after day, ourside of the work, or for people to have to pass union pickets to go to work.
I think that we live in times in which the balance of power is greatly favouring the state, and its actions need to be closely scruitinised.
Another perhaps ironic aspect is that democratic values are so great that politicians are able to make sometimes hightly defamatory comments against others, in parliament, yet receive the protection of parliamentary privilege.
We should aplaud this decison, and lament the fact that it was necessary for the case to be appealled to the Supreme COurt before fundamental democratic rights prevailed.
I think that the consequences of your view would be to greatly undermine the freedom that you profess to support.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/05/2007 09:26:00 PM
Anonymous, I am not defending the police and I would have made the same comments no matter what kind of public servant it had been.
And don't mistake my previous comments as a statement that I do not agree with the supreme court decision. It is certainly a victory against the erosion of civil rights in the USA and also redresses the police corruption that is apparent in this particular case.
When I said before that I am not exactly sure where I stand with it at the moment, I was specifically referring to the actions of protesting at a persons private residence. I would hope that if somebody objected to my actions in some kind of official capacity that they would stage their protest at the place of my work. I know that's what I would do if I were the one protesting.
And it pisses me off that people who live in ordinary neighbourhoods without security fences are easier targets for residential protest, whilst the wealthy elite of society - unaccountable corporate arseholes who deserve to be the target of mass protest rallies - can have the privilege of being relatively unaffected by it.
Surely even you can grasp the disparity of that? And surely you can also see that it is possible to legitimately protest against somebody without privately harassing them?
Isn't the whole idea of freedom of speech based upon liberty and the idea that we should be free to live in peace in the privacy of our own homes?
Posted by zANavAShi : 5/05/2007 10:20:00 PM
Hello Zanavashi. Your example of the wealthy elite is apposite. The can be entirely unaffected by protests conducted at the work environment, in which they can remain insulated.
Whereas, regardless of the length of their driveway or the height of their fences, they are necessarily exposed to the views of the protesters in the coure of returning or leaving home, and their neighbours will also be exposed to knowledge of the actions of their neighbours.
On that basis, the fact of wealth, while it insulates from protests at work, does not so insulate from protests at home. Surely, therefore, they serve a purpose.
And I am advocating only for minor protests such as that in this case, not prolonged, intrusive and high volume protests.
Nor I think can a low level protest like that be equated with harassment. Indeed, the Court found that this did not rise to the level of harassment.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/05/2007 10:36:00 PM
Perhahs another thought. If the protests are required to be at the place of work, how do you accommodate protests against those who work from home, a group that can include lawyers, doctors, accountants, private investigators, politicians etc. Do they receive protection by virtue of wokring from home.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/05/2007 10:47:00 PM
Yup those are good points that you make, I'm still pondering on it but those are some good points to ponder.
I guess for me the point is that we are not likely to be protesting against somebody simply because we dislike them as a person (although there are some people I would surely like to protest just because I think they are an arsehole LOL)
Protests are directed at something vile that the person did in their capacity as a public official or corporate suit, so in that context anywhere that person is operating in that capacity - the work place, a conference, a public speaking tour, a meet and greet at the airport, or whatever is OK by me.
And that would naturally also include their residence if that is where they are operating from in the course of those duties (as in my Camp Casey example)
Your point about the corporate elite being more insulated in their work place than in their homes is a good one however, but I think residential protests should be an absolute last resort.
I dread to think that some religious nutter who objected to some of the stuff I host on my website discovered my home address and set up a protest vigil at my gate.
It would distress the hell out of me and I would most definitely consider it an invasion of my right to privacy, even though I work from home.
So yeh, not so black and white at all. And I don't ponder very well at 3.30 in the morning LOL
Cheers
Zana
Posted by zANavAShi : 5/06/2007 03:29:00 AM
at present for whatever reason a fairly small group of left leaning people with certain views towards society dominate protests. This means any law on how one can protest has the major effect of unleashing or restraining those people.
If some other group was to become organized and start using it such laws would suddenly have different effects.
I expect in the future we would see more 'rent-a-mob's.
For example if an organization like the air port was to sponsor protests about a competition air port from being set up. A firm might give a few hundred thousand to facilitate a protest (advertising, logistics, salaries etc), they could invite a series of usual suspects who will effectively have their own sub protests (like ANSWER protests) etc – basically put all the advantages of being rich and large into protesting.
A huge number of companies - maybe even most companies would have some sort of profitable protest they could theoretically arrange – or at very least government departments they would like to intimidate.
GNZ
Posted by Anonymous : 5/06/2007 10:07:00 AM
What everyone is overlooking in this case/instance is the protester had a search warrent executed against him.
I don't note any charges resulting from the search warrent which could suggest the information for the warrent was bogus.
What I do know is that people who've have had warrents falsely executed against them can experience a rage and feeling of violation similar to a home invasion victim.
Having some red neck booze drinking cop going through your or your ladys underware draw for something like cannabis can inspire a certain loathing for the police.
Greg O'conner is a fear mongering police union rep who's part of the problem with our police force's culture. He's a icon of the 80's style cop and an ex undercover to boot.
I've heard good and bad things about west coast cops.
In this case I hold judgement but suspect the police may have done the first wrong.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/06/2007 08:07:00 PM
zANavAShi said:
Maybe I am showing myself to be a hypocrite in this, but it is commonly known that Bush conducts his political business from home during his rather frequent and lengthy holidays there.
Yes, you are being hypocritical. I doubt there would be a single MP in this country who doesn't spend a large amount of time doing their 'political business' at home -- and Parliament has 'frequent and lengthy' recesses. Now, if you're taking your own argument at all seriously then it either applies to everyone, including the people whose politics you dislike, or it doesn't.
Having said that, sorry Greg - my property line does not extend to the sidewalk or the other side of the road or as far as my eye can see. Neither does yours, or Sian Elias', or Helen Clark's for that matter (who does not live in some gated compound, and AFAIK still has her home address publicly listed in the Mount Albert electoral roll.)
Hey, if the Police Association want to lobby for a law change that creates some magical cordon sanitaire around the homes of its members, good luck. Until then, it would be nice if the head of the Police union would actually focus on protecting the property and privacy rights of all without fear or favour.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 5/06/2007 11:55:00 PM
nznative: I agree with your comments about scaremongering. To an extent, such comments need to be answered (and I hope will be), otherwise the decision might (unfairly) be ill received.
In reality, I suspect that the decision will not much alter the way most people protest, albeit that it is an important reinforcement of rights of freedom of expression and protest and a reminder to the State of the need to observe those rights.
Many would have little interest in protesting outside a person's home. If they did and behaved badly, other criminal and civil provisions could be used.
I think that it does not matter much whether the protest was well founded. Protests serve many purposes, including fostering debate, allowing participation in democracy, operating as a pressure value (a non-violent protest can be seen as potentially preventing bottled up thoughts leading to violence), drawing attention to community concerns and issues, providing scrutiny of the power of the State and its representatives etc. Those purposes can be served when when a protest is without basis.
As an aside, although the Police officer was off duty, police officers wield power 24 hours per day. If a neighbour of a Police officer committed a crime, the offier could pop over the fence and arrest that person. It makes the off duty distinction carry less weight.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/07/2007 12:04:00 AM
Craig - I think the counterargument follows this line - Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees (and requires the Government to guarantee by law) non-interference with people's private lives.
By failing to hold up New Zealand's obligations at international law, the Supreme Court has abandoned our human rights... etc.
Human rights include more than just the rights some people agree we should have (e.g. I/S arguing we have a right to protest). Yes there is a right to protest, but if that protest interferes with others' human rights (including to a private life) it goes too far...
"Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 5/07/2007 01:08:00 AM
Thanks for that Graeme, that is basically where I was coming from in my roundabout sort of a way. Good on you for dredging up the article which I was too lazy to go hunting for.
Yah Craig I think we all have our shades of hypocrisy about certain principles (and personalities) so I confess to being guilty as charged.
:D
Posted by zANavAShi : 5/07/2007 03:18:00 AM
Graeme:
OK, that's a reasonable argument even if I'm not wholly convinced by it. I just have to say, on balance, I'm with I/S on this particular case.
I'd also like to point this out to Mr. O'Connor: My foster brother and his wife (both ex-police officers), live on a lifestyle block and their house is well back from the road and obscured by a stand of trees, their landlines and cell phones are still ex-directory, and while in the NZPF were both on the unlisted electoral roll for reasons I don't think it appropriate to disclose.
Sure, I think you can reasonably disagree with the decision in Brooker v. Police -- but, not for the first time, you really have to wonder if Greg O'Connor really does his own members any favours by going all the way over the top. I don't think cheap shots at where the Chief Justice lives -- and I guess if you happen to be married to Hugh Fletcher, you're not going to be living in a state house on Struggle Street. What exactly does that have to do with the soundness or otherwise of her legal reasoning?
zANavAShi:
Well, join the club. Honesty is a virtue, but I can *cough* dissemble with the best in social situations. You can argue that a civil society needs liberal applications of the oil of polite hypocrisy. :)
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 5/07/2007 09:39:00 AM
Is there something else chummy could have been charged with? On first gloss I took the conviction of disorderly behavior to have been overturned because the behaviour wasn't disorderly.
Posted by Lyndon : 5/07/2007 01:04:00 PM
Lyndon: The police first tried a charge of intimidation, but that was laughed out of court. And it doesn't meet the criteria for harassment, as it wasn't repeated. The officer could always sue for invasion of privacy (and hey, if their union is so upset, maybe they can help with that?) but they may be pushing shit uphill on that one.
Craig: it would be nice if the head of the Police union would actually focus on protecting the property and privacy rights of all without fear or favour.
Why would they? A union's job is to advocate for the interests of its members. And that's exactly what O'Connor is doing with his laughable demand that they be placed above public criticism.
We are interested in a police force which protects the rights of all. If O'Connor's press release is anything to go by, his member's aren't.
Graeme: as I pointed out in my other post, the court explicitly balanced against privacy rights and found they were outweighed in this case by freedom of expression. That balance could very well shift if a protest was more invasive (justice Elias argued that as privacy was not enumerated in the BORA, it should not be considered - but four judges thought it was important, so I think she's pretty well beaten on that point).
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/07/2007 04:23:00 PM
Savant: I agree. The key to the case is the introduction of an objective BORA balancing test, rather than the older and more subjective test. It offers a proper basis for assessment of whether protests are disorderly and is a great improvement.
The key to Brooker's protest was that it was brief, a one-off, low volume, polite, during daylight and good natured. If it were not, perhaps a different result might have followed.
I think those questioning the decision are perhaps considering more intrusive protests with strong harassment elements that were not present.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/07/2007 08:42:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).