A law common to all

Press, 16 May 1985, Page 12

A law common to all

The generally restrained and law-abiding demonstrations a little more than a week ago against the proposed All Black rugby tour of South Africa earned those protesting some credit. They did not seek confrontation and they put their case without breaking the peace. This commendable reserve is a fragile asset, always under threat from fringe elements who have no commitment to peaceful protest.

The national chairman of Hart, Mr John Minto, is out of order when he says that his organisation will support these elements if they break the law while protesting against the tour. His indulgence of law-breaking is not excused by saying that this support would be given only when the offenders have not committed violent acts against other people. With or without this qualification, Mr Minto is implying that Hart will countenance breaking the law — an implication that will be seized only too willingly by extremists on both sides of the argument.

Mr Minto says that the protesters have asked the police to distinguish between damage to property and violence against people. Mr Minto must first tell the public why the antitour movement should think it necessary to resort to the vandalism of other people’s property to state its case. Such unproductive responses as sawing down goal posts serve only

to demonstrate the lack of responsibility of the vandals, and also weaken the standing of their argument and that of their fellow opponents of the tour.

For practical reasons, the police are bound to make a distinction, after the event, between damage to property and violence to people because charges have to be laid under different sections of the law. On-the-spot distinctions between upholding one law or another are neither practicable nor desirable. Preventing violence to people obviously is a priority, but the wilful damage of private property cannot be overlooked and often could lead to violence. Many unpleasant and illegal acts that stop short of actual physical violence to others nevertheless amount to psychological violence and terrorism of a nasty and cowardly kind.

It is precisely at times of deep differences of opinion in the community that the impartial application of the law is necessary to cool things down. Selective application of the law to suit protesters — or anyone else — is unacceptable and can lead only to more lawlessness. Mr Minto’s provocative statement was most ill-considered. He and his colleagues would do well to reconsider their support for people who break the law under the guise of legitimate protest.