Australian Politics and Active Citizenship
Australia has a long history of protests. Following George Floyd’s murder in the U.S., protestors gathered in Sydney to rally against Indigenous deaths in custody. Other Australian cities also planned the demonstrations. As a result, Scott Morrison warned Australians against “importing the things that were taking place overseas to Australia.” Under the banner, “Black Lives Matter,” Australians protested against divisions that are being seen in America due to white supremacy. In the lens of liberal democracy, these protests have both merits and demerits to citizens and the country at large.
Arguments for
The legal ground of the right to protest in NSW is the common law right to peaceful assembly. The Australian Constitution protects the right to peaceful assembly under the implied freedom of political communication. The recent protests in Australian cities, “Black Lives Matter,” can be defended based on the following reasons:
Demonstrations allow citizens to voice their concerns: The right to assemble grants citizens the right to protest against the unfair application of the rule of law by the government. In Australia, for example, the protests allowed the citizens to demand justice over minority deaths in police custody.
Sign of solidarity: When masses of people protest, this attracts government attention, for it shows the magnitude of the issue to the citizens. Like in the case of Australian protests, the demonstrators shown solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. Indigenous rights groups demanded that the government stop black deaths in custody.
Protests give subjects the illusion to exercise liberal democracy: As a nation, Australia maintains a stable liberal democratic system as stipulated in the Constitution. The power is not only vested to its federal government but also the people. Thus, such protests allow the people to vent their anger and pressure the federal government to act in collaboration with the rule of law, to ensure that the right to live is equally acquitted to all citizens without any form of discrimination.
Arguments against