NSW Knitting Nannas staying the course in the face of burdensome state anti-protest laws

 

The Knitting Nannas are to be admired for their sheer tenacity & commitment to non-violent protest

Nannas at early demo at NAB AGM Martin Place with Move Beyond Coal, XR, & Tiwi Is visitors to tell NAB to Stop Funding Fossil Fuels. Loud singing & inflated dolphin waving.@NAB pic.twitter.com/EXVXuuvkpR

— Knitting Nannas and Friends - Sydney (@knitnannasSYD) December 15, 2023

 

Environmental Defenders Office, News, 13 December 2023:

Supreme Court rules parts of NSW anti-protest laws are unconstitutional

Parts of harsh anti-protest laws passed in NSW last year have been found to be unconstitutional after a legal challenge by two Knitting Nannas protesters who argued they impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication. [1]

Two Knitting Nannas, Helen Kvelde and Dominique Jacobs, took legal action to defend the right to protest in October 2022, after the NSW Government passed new laws following a series of climate-related demonstrations.

On behalf of Helen and Dom, the Environmental Defenders Office launched a constitutional challenge to s 214A of the Crimes Act 1900 that criminalised certain conduct such as remaining “near” any part of a “major facility” (such as Martin Place Station) if that conduct “causes persons attempting to use the major facility to be redirected”, on the basis it impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication.

The Nannas also asked the court to find the amendments to the Roads Regulation 2018 that altered the definition of “major bridge, tunnel or road” under s 144G of the Roads Act 1993 beyond regulation-making power and therefore invalid.

Today, the Supreme Court upheld parts of the constitutional challenge, declaring parts of s 214A of the Crimes Act are invalid because they infringe on the implied freedom of political communication. However, the court found the amendments to the Roads Regulation 2018 valid.

In delivering his reasons Justice Walton said: “Section 214A imposes an unjustified burden on the implied freedom to communicate on governmental and political matters, which is an indispensable incident of the constitutionally prescribed system of government … [this] conclusion concerns the provision of subs 214A (1) (c) (vis-a-vis the partial closure of major facilities) and subs 214A(1)(d) which thereby renders those subsections invalid.”

Helen Kvelde said: “We are happy the court has given some acknowledgement to the democratic right to protest.

“But these laws to me feel like a distraction. As if both Labor and the Liberal Party are trying to get the population angry with protesters instead of angry against politicians for failing to protect us from climate emergency.

“I’m not sure what we can do next, but it doesn’t feel right to just let this go. We need to fight for our democratic right to protest peacefully. I wish people would understand that ultimately these laws could affect anyone – anyone the government of the day does not like.”

REFERENCES

[1] Kvelde v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 1560

Grata Fund supports people and communities to hold powerful government and corporate leaders to account and achieve systemic change through the courts. Grata has provided financial backing to remove the barriers of adverse costs to this important piece of public interest litigation.

Environmental Defenders Office filed a legal challenge to NSW Government's draconian anti-protest laws on behalf of two Knitting Nannas members who live in fire and flood affected parts of the NSW far north coast

 

Post at The Saturday Paper, 13 October 2022:

Knitting Nannas unpick anti-protest laws

Two members of the Knitting Nannas will challenge the NSW government’s anti-protest laws in court, as climate activists explore avenues for action with “less punitive” consequences.

What we know:

• The Environmental Defenders Office will file the legal challenge on behalf of the two activists, who live in fire and flood-affected parts of the NSW far north coast (The Guardian);

• The two women have concerns about the controversial laws introduced in March that allow fines of $22,000 and two years in prison to punish non-violent protesters;

• They will argue that making it illegal to protest on major roads, tunnels and “near” prescribed facilities unlawfully impinges on the freedom to protest;

• “When it comes to protest rights … it can be a death by a thousand cuts. We have to fight to preserve that right, ” said David Morris of the Environmental Defenders Office;

• The legal challenge comes as the union movement pushes NSW Labor to commit to reversing the laws if elected in March (Sydney Criminal Lawyers);…….

Environmental Defenders Office spokesperson announcing legal challenge on 13.10.22, accompanied by Knitting Nannas Helen Kvelde and Dominique Jacobs. IMAGE: @jatremain

‘For these two women protest became an essential form of political expression to sound the alarm about the impacts of climate change. “Our communities have felt terrified, angry and stressed. Protest can transform those overwhelming feelings into change and action,” Dominique said. “We will ask the Court to find that aspects of these new laws are unconstitutional. Australians like us shouldn’t have to risk imprisonment or bankruptcy to participate in our democracy, and the Government should not be taking away our democratic freedoms.”’ [Environmental Defenders Office, October 2022]

Morrison Government seeks to reopen Love v Commonwealth of Australia in High Court seeking reversal of a February 2020 judgment which found Aboriginal Australians, even when born outside Commonwealth borders, are not aliens under the Constitution and cannot be deported

 

The Guardian, 14 October 2021: 

The federal government is seeking to overturn a landmark high court decision that deemed Aboriginal Australians cannot be aliens and cannot be deported. 

The Love and Thoms ruling in February 2020 ranks as the high court’s most significant constitutional decision in recent years, with the narrow four-to-three judgment prompting Coalition conservatives to publicly lobby for black-letter judges to be appointed. 

 Just a year and a half later, the commonwealth has revealed it wants the precedent to be overturned after a New Zealand man tried to fight deportation using the Love and Thoms precedent..... 

 In June 2020 Amanda Stoker, now the assistant attorney general, noted in a research paper that given the two retirements “there is a significant possibility that a reconstituted bench would reconsider the decision in the event of challenge”. In its submissions, the commonwealth revealed that the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, and home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, will seek leave “to the extent necessary, to argue that Love was wrongly decided”..... 

 [High Court Justice] Keane said it would be difficult for the high court to hear the case in 2021, given the number of cases already delayed by Covid. Keane agreed to remove the constitutional aspects of the case to the high court, giving interveners until 22 November to join the case, likely to be heard in the new year.

Read the full article here.