As we have moved towards accepting greater diversity in our communities and country, we have somehow, at the same time, become less tolerant of different views and ideas, and of the democratic right people have to express those.
This irony is especially highlighted when holding the "wrong" opinion on something can lead to one’s castigation and even that dire 21st century threat of being "cancelled". Just who is deciding which opinions are right and which are wrong?
However, some views, of course, are racially, politically, religiously or morally repugnant and should not be voiced publicly to bully or threaten others, incite hatred or cajole people to break the law.
The ability to legally take our concerns to the streets, and right up to the front steps of Parliament, is one we should be out celebrating every morning, given what is occurring in some parts of the world. In our usual apathetic way we don’t though, assuming subconsciously that that right will always be there for us, should we choose to unleash it.
Our police generally do a good job at protecting our right to protest while ensuring others are able to go about their daily business undisturbed. It cannot be an easy line for them to tread.
That’s not to say the police haven’t got things wrong, and very badly wrong at that, in the past. Straight away the 1981 Springbok Tour comes to mind, with frequent thuggish, violent behaviour on the part of the police, stirred on by the prime minister of the day, Robert Muldoon.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority has now completed a review of the policing of public protests in New Zealand, somewhat poignantly issued just a couple of days after Destiny Church demonstraters frightened young children at a library drag event in Auckland.
In his report, authority chairman Judge Kenneth Johnston KC concludes there is too much uncertainty around protest policing here, compared with other countries we assess ourselves against, including Australia and the United Kingdom. That doubt about the limits of lawful protest means there are inconsistencies in the way police are controlling protests.
As a consequence of not having an effective process for deciding in advance what restrictions there should be on assembly, movement and expression, frontline officers and supervisors are left to decide that, with only general guidance, Judge Johnston says.
The report, which builds on a review of complaints following the March 2023 "Posie Parker" rally in Auckland and on protests about Israel and Gaza, recommends new targeted legislation to ensure, among other things, advance notice of protests and assemblies, allow senior police officers and local authorities to set protest conditions which must be complied with, and create a new offence provision to replace current public assembly offences.
Judge Johnston says the proposals are designed to better protect protestors and facilitate the rights of freedom and expression, not "impose greater constraints on the right to protest".
The changes seem largely common sense and we are cautiously supportive of them if they ensure consistency, as long as the fundamental and democratic rights to protest are not curtailed. For we have seen how, in the UK, the police have become increasingly restrictive about protests and have come down hard on protestors, with the courts handing out what seem like overly tough sentences. We can also see how freedom to speak up against the Trump government is being inhibited in parts of the United States.
Here, in the meantime, we remain at risk of more threatening and boorish action from the likes of Destiny Church, which certainly does not deserve to remain a charity when it is scaring children. If the mooted changes put a lid on Destiny’s hostile and sinister behaviour, then we are all for that.
