LEARNING TO LIVE WITH DEMONSTRATIONS

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32406, 19 September 1970, Page 12

LEARNING TO LIVE WITH DEMONSTRATIONS

(By

KEN COATES)

Few issues in New Zealand arouse such intense feelings as the right to demonstrate and the actions of demonstrators and of those in authority. But it seems that protest marches have become part of today’s pattern of life. “It is certain,” said the Ombudsman (Sir Guy Powles) recently, “that our society will have to live with demonstrations for the foreseeable future.”

He added that in the public interest everyone should know the rules.

This raises the question of precisely what the rules should be for demonstrations, and there is debate in Christchurch at present on this point. The question is whether the existing law is sufficient, or whether the right of people to hold demonstrations in public places should be restricted by the City Council.

The council has adopted a proposed by-law, but it has yet to be confirmed. Submissions opposing it have been made. On the council itself, there is division of opinion. The Mayor (Mr A. R. Guthrey) says it is not the business of the council to tell people where and when to demonstrate, and that within reason a group of demonstrators should have the right to “say their piece,” even at the expense of some inconvenience to others.

Mr H. P. Smith, deputy Mayor, on the other hand, considers it is the council’s responsibility to regulate

demonstrations, and that large numbers demonstrating in the centre of the city at a peak traffic period is unduly interfering with the rights of other people. Here in detail are the respective views: The Mayor (Mr Guthrey) feels strongly that freedom

of speech and the right of peaceful assembly are basic human liberties. Orderly demonstrations, he considers, are an important way for minorities to express opinions when normal news media are not always available to them. While he has strong views on the freedom to demonstrate peacefully, he is firmly against action he labels as agressively rude and intolerant. But he points out that demonstration and disorderly behaviour is not always synonomous. If one leads to the other, the problem is not solved by prohibiting demonstrations, but in preventing disorder. This should be achieved by the police, with sympathetic support by the public, and by preventive penalties by the Court. Mr Guthrey feels that on occasions, when the police are clearly doing their duty to preserve peace, the public is too timid. People should at least give the police moral support and occasionally some physical support, he says. “We have an excellent Police Force, and it has a wonderful record,” he adds. “It is entitled to more public support than it sometimes gets for upholding the law.” As to a local body’s role in demonstrations, Mr Guthrey feels that provided pro-

test is orderly and peaceful, there is no reason for the City Council to be concerned. However, when charges are laid, the Courts have a duty, he considers, to impose stiff sentences for violence and disorderly behaviour, as deterrent penalties. In England recently, several Cambridge University students had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for disorderly behaviour. Within the law Asked what he considers reasonable protest, the Mayor says shouting, waving banners and marching are allowed within the law. The law is there,- and there is no need for by-laws to be passed, he says. He does feel that perhaps the police should be present in greater numbers to enforce the law, but recognises' the difficulties in doing this if there is a lack of public sympathy. The Mayor feels it is not necessary for permits to demonstrate to be issued. In any case, he says, with a demonstration of any size, evereyone, including the authorities, know about it well in advance.

If cap-in-hand approaches have to be made to the City Council for permission to demonstrate, and they are refused, those concerned are unlikely to accept the ruling, and are more likely to demonstrate against the decision. This, he says, is what is happening at present in Auckland.

Mr Guthrey recognises that although most people who organise demonstrations in Christchurch do not desire violence, there is always a group “on the fringe.” He hopes that advice will always be given by demonstration organisers on the route to be followed and so on, so that the police and Transport Department can more adequately safeguard the public if the demonstration gets out of hand. But they must also ensure that everyone gets a fair go and the demonstrators get the opportunity to “say their piece.”

The Mayor does not agree with the proposal that demonstrators should protest only in specific areas. He recognises the feeling of protesters that to be most effective, they must be where people congregate, so they can be seen and heard. He is aware inconvenience

can be caused ordinary citizens, especially those shopping on Friday nights. But at the same time, he feels it is a question or the rights of one group having priority for a period, so long as the inconvenience is not too regular or serious. The deputy Mayor (Mr Harold Smith) a lawyer with a long record of public service, sees the City Council as having a definite responsibi-

lity to regulate demonstrations. He makes it clear he is not against demonstrations, although he is not particularly happy with the term, and would prefer to speak of favouring speaking in public. This was an opportunity for people to express their views and let off steam, he said, and he always enjoyed the public speaking in Hyde Park when he visited London. He divides protest into speaking and marching. Speaking, he says, should be confined to specific, places, while marches should be regulated according to the time of the day and the number taking part. Mr Smith contends that a march which unduly inteferes with the rights of others should not be allowed by the City Council which has Jurisdiction over the use of the streets. Disruption of traffic, he says, is interference with the rights of others. And it is unreasonable, he adds, for a large demonstration to interfere with traffic at all during peak times. As to what may be considered peak times, he says this is a matter to be defined by the traffic authorities. But he does envisage demonstrations being governed by time and the number taking part. Mr Smith does not consider that a desire by demonstrators to make an impact in the city where people congregate warrants permission being given. To allow it, he sees as being one step away from some kind of lawlessness and shouted obscenities. Use of streets He also firmly believes that it is the City Council’s clear responsibility to regulate the use of the city streets, and this includes their use by one or more groups which want to demonstrate.

“Some-one has to say ‘no’,” he maintains, “and I am not prepared to say ‘do what you like’ because some people might be aggravated by me saying ’no’.” How far do we intend to go with the permissive society? he asks. He looks on an “open season,” as it were, for demonstrations as inviting trouble by producing conditions highly conductive to violence and chanted obscenities. The deputy Mayor also raises the question of what would happen if 20 groups of demonstrators all wanted to march at the same time in the city. Asked about the role of the Police, Mr Smith said it was not the job of the Police to regulate the use of the streets. However, he considers that when requests for permission to demonstrate are being considered, this should be exclusive of purpose. In other words, the reason for protest should not come into the decision. Mr Smith does not see demonstrations in the centre of the city as simply a question of one section of the community giving way to the rights of .another for a period. He puts the matter this way: “Either there is reasonable control of the streets in the interests of everyone, including the demonstrators; or all those who want to demonstrate are allowed to do so, and make their own arrangements in the hope that no provocation of anyone by anybody else will occur.” But if demonstrators are allowed to make their own arrangements, considers Mr Smith, this is a shift of responsibility from the local authority to the Police.