BY RUTH RATCLIFFE
DARWIN "While I am on my feet, I would like to say very categorically that I welcome the very decisive sentencing that happened for those members of NAP [Network Against Prohibition] who invaded this parliament the May before last. It is a very serious offence to invade parliament and I certainly welcome the very strong decision from the magistrates" Chief Minister Claire Martin addressing NT parliament on June 18.
The "strong decision" that Martin applauded was to lock up young activists for five months because they took their protest into the NT parliament. Five NAP members have been convicted of "deliberately disrupting the Legislative Assembly". Their sentences, currently under appeal to the Supreme Court, range from 16 to 21 months' imprisonment, suspended after four or five months.
The precedent is astounding. The protesters did not damage property or do anyone an injury during their protest. They entered the floor of the Legislative Assembly unchallenged. After making speeches to the parliamentarians regarding the likely impact of the "Drugs Misuse Amendment Bill" (which was being debated) they were escorted out by security guards.
In a climate of increasing crackdowns on the right to protest, the sentencing of the NAP activists shows how little complacency we can have about our civil liberties.
The "crime" of disrupting the Legislative Assembly is not a new law. Neither are the "crimes" of "bill posting", "failing to cease to loiter" or "failing to comply with the instructions of an authorised officer". During the past year, all these charges have been laid against NAP activists. The activists' records are now being used to justify incredibly harsh sentences. All these charges, however, were applied because NAP activists were protesting the NT government's drug laws.
All these charges limit freedom of speech and dissent. They have no other purpose with the exception of "failing to cease to loiter", which is also designed to remove young, indigenous or migrant people from public space.
Public, loud dissent in parliament has been tolerated for years, despite cries of outrage from parliamentarians.
When, in 1996, the debate on the Coalition government's Native Title 10-point plan was interrupted by protesters in the public gallery, various politicians and shock jocks accused the activists of being "undemocratic" because they disrupted the speeches of elected representatives. However, if not for the actions of protesters inside and outside parliament the millions of Australians who unequivocally opposed the racist legislation would have been unrepresented. Is that democracy?
More recently, when the Australian government committed Australian troops to the war in Iraq, it was clear that the 67% of Australians who opposed the war were not represented on either side of the house. Representatives of the massive anti-war movement were unceremoniously ejected from the public gallery in federal parliament under the NT precedent, they could have been jailed for up to two years.
Claire Martin may welcome the jailing of peaceful protesters who dare to take their protest to the floor of parliament as a "strong decision".
I consider it a fundamental and serious attack on the right to protest, which all democratic-minded people should oppose. Send protest letters demanding that the charges against the NAP activists to < minister.toyneA HREF="mailto:@nt.gov.au"><@nt.gov.au>.
[Ruth Ratcliffe is the convenor of the Darwin branch of the Socialist Alliance.]
From Green Left Weekly, June 25, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.