Suchergebnisse

This post considers the latest episode of Australia's engagement with civil disobedience under its constitutionally 'implied freedom of political communication' — Kvelde v New South Wales ('Kvelde'). In Kvelde a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court followed the tendency of some High Court judges of reducing the democratic value of civil disobedience to binary terms: if a form of political speech is already illegal, the Court will not engage with further legislative acts seeking to increase penalties for it. I describe this as the 'binary approach.' I argue that the binary approach reflects a particular judicial theory of political change not necessarily prescribed by the freedom, that is also out of step with historical Australian political practices.

In Germany, disruptive protest demanding climate change mitigation policies has provoked popular and constitutional discussion. Commentators have questioned whether acts of illegality committed as civil disobedience should be treated distinctly from 'ordinary' criminality and punished more leniently. In other parts of the world, however, legislative activity has singled out the illegality involved in civil disobedience to the opposite end. Legislatures have introduced laws that radically increase penalties for existing offences involved in disruptive protest and blockades, conferred new powers on police, and created new offences for previously legal forms of protest. In this post I explore an Australian legislative trend of the last decade that specifically targets environmental civil disobedience by imposing additional criminal penalties upon its exercise. The Australian case study is a cautionary tale of what can follow a failure to recognise democratic value in civil disobedience and treat it with constitutional nuance.