Forum Post: The New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 - Thats what we have-what about you?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 15, 2011, 10:01 p.m. EST by KiwiLucien
(6)
from Lower Buller, West Coast
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In the article below, the legislation covering public assembly in New Zealand is described, and a strong case is made for the rights of the protesters to pitch tents and stay in them for the duration of protests.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10766253
The Bill of Rights, to quote the author, gives people the right to "peacefully assemble to join in collective action." As a non-American I have watched with interest as both sides have used the law to support their position and sometimes it seems the police in particular as well as some protesters have been guilty of breaking some of those laws. The key problem it seems in the US and in parts of Europe is that the police have clearly stepped over the line, and this in turn has led to all too human reactions from the protesters - I mean who isn't going to try to push off a motorbike that a cop has ridden on to his leg? And who isn't going to be seriously tempted to strike back at the policeman who just jabbed him in the stomach? The point is that in order to maintain a peaceful protest the police must follow the law to the letter and where there are conflicting laws the rights of the protesters take first priority. But in order for that to be the case there must be clear laws stating that protest and peaceable assembly is a inalienable right. Although it seems to me the New Zealand system is a good system I think there have been failures, but those failures have usually been as a result of incorrect application or transgression of the law rather than because the law itself was wrong. So can someone please explain to me the law regarding assembly in the US or is is different depending on which state you are in? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10766253
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
this is the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights, US Constitution. Note the right of the people to peaceably assemble. It doesn't say how we have to assemble, or that we can't use tents, or only assemble for certain time periods. It does say that the government may not make any law prohibiting or abridging that right.
and surely if you have the right to assemble then you also have the right to protect yourself from the elements while doing so?
Translation: Liberals can camp out anywhere they damn please, stay as long as they want, and do not have to adhere to anyone else rules.
The police in Melbourne, Australia beat up and bloodied more protesters in one day than any police department here in the states has done.
They can assemble. It's in the constitution. What they did was make a tent city on public property which resulted in a safety and health hazard for the public, which have rights as well such as using the park. They are allowed to be there, just not to make camp.
This I think is a big difference to how I understand the NZ version of law. As the article I referenced says about the right to protest - "These rights can then be limited only if doing so is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".". The question is are the authorities justified if using sanitation as an excuse? Is such as hierarchy of priorities correct?
I'm pretty sure that the sanitation issue wasn't exactly unfounded. The fact is also that the protestors can't make the park their home. It's a public place and the public has rights to it as well. You can't infringe on someone else's rights for a reason of your own.
"You can't infringe on someone else's rights for a reason of your own." This is very true but there is an exception - when someone is denying you your rights.
Your rights do not extend to being able to do whatever you want. The protestors are invited to come back as long as they don't make a town there. They cleaned the park and told them they are welcome to come back. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you can infringe on the rights of others. Like what you just said "when someone is denying you your rights". I have a right to take my family to the park and enjoy it. I can't if its dirty and filled with a kitchen, a library, and tents. The park is not designated for such activity. The OWS people are clearly welcomed to be there, just not to have tents.
I could argue that your right to take your family for a walk in that particular park is less important than the rights of a much large number to participate in a protest that is arguably more important than your walk because a)it has the possibility of bringing about lasting change, and b)affects a larger number of people. And I don't know the geography of NYC but I imagine there are more than just one park to go for a walk with your family in while the location of Zucotti park makes it more ideal for the message of the protest than another park would be. Also we must first ascertain the right of the people to protest. If they have that right then they also have the right to protect themselves from the elements. Don't they?
I don't think I'm making myself clear. There's no way you can say it's ok to allow them to set up camp without it infringing on the rights of others. They are clearly, VERY CLEARLY, allowed to be there. They just can't make habitations there. If there were homeless people who made a tent city, they would be asked/forced to leave as well. This isn't cutting down on the rights of the protestors, it's upholding rules and rights of others. You're just blinded because you want to believe in this movement so much. The fact that you are ready to "ascertain the right to protest" first and foremost and that "your right is less important of a much larger number" is very scary.