Perth Voice Interactive

HUNDREDS are threatening to bring a “thing” to parliament house at noon next Tuesday, February 23, to urge the Barnett government to abandon its vague anti-protest laws.

Three-hundred people have pledged to attend and another 600 are following a Facebook group opposed to laws which make it an offence to carry a “thing” with the “presumed” intention of impeding lawful activity “if the contrary is not proved”.

That means if you’re carrying a thing it’s up to you to prove you’re carrying it for a lawful purpose, it’s not up to the police to prove otherwise: it’s a reversal of the burden of proof and presumption of innocence that have been cornerstones of our justice system since the sixth century AD (“Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” — “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies” The Digest of Justinian).

Protestors plan to bring “things” en masse, with one activist suggesting a shoebox with a hole cut in it for your hand, an homage to the Addams’ Family’s pet.

The Government says it’s being deliberately vague, citing anti-logging activities where protestors use “things” to chain themselves to trees or bulldozers to prevent tree-felling. One method cited is thumb locks: a protestor uses ice water to shrink their thumbs, sticks them in the locks and then they swell up, making it extremely difficult (and time-consuming) to remove before the loggers get back to work.

Another device named by the Government is the “barrel lock”: “Protestors use a large steel barrel with a hole in each side. Protestors then place their arm inside the barrel and using various means lock their arms to something within the barrel. The barrel is often weighted with cement and lined with random pieces of steel to make moving or cutting through the barrel difficult and dangerous.

The bill would aim to make possessing such devices an offence if “the circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion” that it’s to hinder lawful activities and if “the contrary is not proved”.

The vagueness is causing wide concern: Mark McGowan has pledged that if Labor’s elected he’ll repeal the law, assuming it is passed, the Greens have been fighting it this week in parliament, various farmers groups, unions, Perth churches, environmental and Aboriginal rights groups also oppose it.

The United Nations Human Rights Office also came out against the bill, issuing a statement saying the law “would go against Australia’s international obligations under international human rights law including the freedom of opinion and expression as well as peaceful assembly and association”.

With a penalty of up to two years’ gaol or a $24,000 fine in aggravated cases, Mr McGowan says “these extreme laws could be used against farmers, church members, conservationists, local community groups, workers or anyone involved in a peaceful protest who are deemed to be an ‘obstruction’”.

by DAVID BELL