VICTORIA - POLICE STATE!

The following opinion piece was in The Age newspaper on 26 October 2011, and very much addresses the issues of police state mentality which rule the city, state and country at the moment!

Civil rights and crossing the line

Anna Brown

October 26, 2011



Council and police actions to evict city protesters raise serious questions.
Given Victoria Police use force, on average, every 2.5 hours, it seems they might have achieved their monthly quota in the space of last Friday morning. An alarming statistic when one considers that the spike was due not to a surge in knife crime or even petty theft, but a gathering of people seeking to exercise political freedoms protected under the law.

Whatever one's views on the Occupy Melbourne protesters and their aims, the decisions and actions taken by lord mayor Robert Doyle and the Victoria Police to forcibly evict peaceful demonstrators from City Square raise a number of serious questions about infringement of fundamental civil and political rights and the excessive use of force by Victoria Police. Importantly, in Victoria, these human rights have legal force, through the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, our version of a human rights act.

Doyle has a democratic duty as a public official, and a legal responsibility as a ''public authority'' under the charter, to act compatibly and give proper consideration to human rights when making decisions. These rights include freedom of expression and the right to peaceful political assembly, as well as the right to liberty and security of person. The decision to forcibly evict the protesters should be carefully scrutinised against these obligations.


'Police might have achieved their monthly quota of force last Friday morning.'

The onus lies on Melbourne City Council and Victoria Police to justify the necessity for the forcible eviction of the protesters. It is also incumbent upon the authorities to demonstrate the action taken was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. It is difficult to see how the stated objectives of restoring the amenity and aesthetic of City Square could justify substantial interference with fundamental rights and freedoms.

Police have responded to criticism by stating that they were obliged to act after the council decision. Regardless of whether the decision to evict the protesters was lawful or not (and arguably it was not), the use of force by Victoria Police must comply with the law, in particular the legal responsibility to respect human rights when carrying out their duties.

Police officers should only use force as a last resort and only when strictly necessary. It should be used with the utmost restraint and in a manner that minimises damage and injury. For example, the use of capsicum spray is only justified if there is an imminent threat of serious injury and officers have attempted other non-violent means. It is incumbent upon Victoria Police to demonstrate the force used was necessary.

The use of temporary fencing to contain the protesters should also be scrutinised. ''Containment'' is a tactic used by police to contain and eventually disperse large groups of protesters. Victoria Police contained the Occupy Melbourne protesters with some success to effect their eviction from the City Square. The High Court in England considered this issue in relation to the G20 protests in London and police were found to have acted unlawfully in containing non-violent protesters. The court said containment of protesters was only justified in ''truly extreme and exceptional circumstances'' where no other means were available to prevent an imminent breach of the peace and only ''as a last resort catering for situations about to descend into violence''. It is difficult to see how Victoria Police's containment of protesters was justified measured against these threshold requirements.

Excessive use of force is not a new issue for Victoria Police. The Human Rights Law Centre and other community organisations have long campaigned for reform of the regulation, training and monitoring of police use of force. The events serve to underline the need for a fully independent, adequately resourced body to investigate police misconduct and incidents involving the excessive use of force. Such an independent investigatory body would not only reduce the risk of collusion or corruption, but increase public trust in police processes.

In recent years, Victoria Police has improved training on the use of force; including by promoting the importance of human rights and increasing the emphasis on communication and conflict de-escalation. Victoria Police has said that ''human rights protection is synonymous with good policing in liberal democratic societies''. The recent actions of Victoria Police in forcibly evicting peaceful protesters and suppressing the rights to freedom of expression and assembly, however, show further reform is necessary to ''uphold our rights''.

Anna Brown is director of advocacy and strategic litigation at the Human Rights Law Centre.

PREMIER OF VICTORIA TED BAILLIEU ABANDONS DEMOCRACY - HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT EQUAL RIGHTS!

Open letter to the Victorian Premier concerning human rights and discrimination

PO Box 1675
Preston South
Vic 3072

ATTENTION VICTORIAN PREMIER TED BAILLIEU

Dear Ted,



You were recently elected to the Victorian parliament with what could not be termed an overwhelming parliamentary majority, either in the lower house or the upper house.



Your government is now trying to remove human rights from the citizens of this state which have been fought for over time and which have achieved success and relief for many people previously disadvantaged before human rights achieved the openness for which they have become so necessary.



It would appear that the attorney general of your government is determined to reintroduce discriminations which had been successfully removed and which will, by their reintroduction turn the Victorian clock of achievements back some 50 years to a time when so many people didn’t have rights which they now have.



It is worth bearing in mind that organisations which will be able to discriminate at will are those organisations which already have exemptions under the present legislation. This, of course means religious institutions which are also non-taxpayers to the society which houses them.



You and the attorney general should bear in mind the facts that you may not need the protections provided by the laws as you intend to change them, but one day when you are older and circumstances change, you may find yourselves lacking those very protections for which so many people have fought for so long.



It is also worth remembering that although people elected your government on the basis that they saw the previous government as out of touch and arrogant, it will probably not take much persuasion for people to notice that your government is acting no differently from the previous government and decide at the next election, only 3 years away, that they have had enough of the Baillieu government’s take on human rights in Victoria and will vote for change.



The gay, lesbian, transgender and HIV/AIDS (GLTH) communities are still discriminated against by religious institutions under current human rights legislation. This discrimination will now become much worse with the changes proposed by the attorney general. How you and your government will deal with this when it is discovered one day that people who are close to you are in those categories and are being discriminated against by your government will be interesting to discover.



JCCV Welcomes Amendments to Equal Opportunity Act [May 6 2011]

The Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) is delighted to see that the Victorian Government is proposing amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act as recently announced by the Attorney General, Robert Clark. In particular, the JCCV sees the amendments as rectifying anomalies in Victorian Equal Opportunity legislation as it relates to religious based schools and organisations.

Searle noted that “the amendments will ensure we have a fair balance between preventing discrimination and ensuring that schools and other organisations are able to employ people who conform with the value system and beliefs of the organisation. In this way, we will limit the possibilities for clashes, offence and tension in the workplace.”

This would be a good time to stop this amendment in its tracks before it does irreparable harm to the Victorian communities it is supposed to support and help.



Mannie De Saxe, Lesbian and Gay Solidarity, Melbourne


Media release: Greens MP stops Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill in the upper house

03/06/2011



"Changes to Victoria’s equal opportunity laws which were rammed through the lower house on Wednesday are a step backwards for the human rights of thousands of Victorians", Greens justice spokesperson Sue Pennicuik MLC said today.

"The government rushed the bill into the upper house first thing yesterday morning, but I was able to use the right open to any member to deny the government 'leave' to 'second read' the bill straight away" said Ms Pennicuik.

"We had already witnessed the spectacle of the government suspending the rules of parliament to allow the bill to be reintroduced and passed in the Legislative Assembly after the government lost the vote on it last week. This has set a very bad precedent for democracy in Victoria". The bill will now be debated in the upper house on 14 June.

"This bill will allow faith-based organisations and schools to discriminate in employment matters on the basis of a person's religious beliefs or activities, sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status and gender identity, without the current qualifier that the attribute must be an inherent requirement of the job (introduced by the previous government in 2010 in attempt to balance religious freedom with freedom from discrimination).

“However, neither the current act, nor the proposed changes balance religious freedom with the fundamental human rights of everyone to equality and protection against discrimination,” Ms Pennicuik said.

“There is no place for discrimination in employment on the basis of personal characteristics", she said. "Employers should not be asking employees or job applicants about their personal lives. The only questions should be about qualifications and experience that are genuine requirements of the job”.

The review of equal opportunity laws in 2008 by Julian Gardner, recommended that the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) should be empowered to uncover entrenched or systemic discrimination.

"The new Inquiry function is very important when we know that individuals do not always make complaints of discrimination for fear of the consequences”, Ms Pennicuik said. "The new laws will remove this newly won function of VEOHRC".