DEAR News Of The Area,

WRITER John Ball, in his letter of 31 January 2025, raises some important points regarding “what is right”.

When is it justifiable to break the law?

How do we reconcile the conflict between law and justice?

Is it unfair for protesters to influence members of the parliament via the media.

The law and justice are not the same thing and sometimes laws are unjust.

When this is the case people start with the usual peaceful means of changing the law.

The early Suffragettes petitioned the Parliament, made speeches in public squares, and printed leaflets.

For this they were blacklisted from work, their children were taken from them, they were imprisoned, and humiliated.

What does one do when peaceful campaigning is met with violence?

It is worth reflecting upon the fact that the people who hid Anne Frank were breaking the law, while those who turned her in were complying with it.

When I was growing up homosexuality was illegal as were abortions.

We now have gay marriage and legal access to terminations (if not actual access in regional areas).

What these societal changes reflect is that the law is often wrong and can take decades to change.

But they didn’t change because people complied with the law.

They changed because the pressure within society forced changes.

Does our democracy operate on a level playing field?

Does a billionaire like Gina Rhinehart or Clive Palmer exert the same influence on our politicians as myself or John Ball?

One would be naive to think so.

Wealth and privilege carry clout and have access to power and media in a way that a bunch of knitting nannas can only dream.

Protest is a legitimate, and inevitable, response to injustice.

Making protest illegal, and onerously expensive, without addressing the issue of injustice often leads to violence. Shutting down protests with state violence increases the risk of more violence.

It erodes democracy by not addressing people’s legitimate concerns.

It erodes trust in our institutions if the law and the government is seen to always be favouring the rich and powerful.

I am not condoning violence.

I certainly do not condone the violence of the State against peaceful protest. But it is not my observation alone that stifling the right to peaceful protest increases the risk of violence.

In Australia we have no Bill of Rights and I believe we should.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good start.

We should explicitly have the right to protest, especially the right to protest unjust laws.

We should listen to the protesters and resolve issues peacefully with the shared goal of making a better life for us all, not just the rich and powerful.

Regards,
Peter SOBEY,
Valla.