Victoria’s draconian new anti-protest laws won’t keep anyone safe

Victoria Premier Jacinta Allan in response to the attack on the Eastern Melbourne Hebrew community at the weekend announced It will progress with new anti-anti-anti-procedures and more police force.

In doing so, it follows the new normal for government governments throughout the country: to use racism and violence as an excuse to compress unrelated democratic rights.

Going to the streets of peaceful protests is one of the main ways for people to come together and express our political views when our representatives do not listen to us. However, this right is not unlimited. Every person has the right to worship security. The attack on the East Melbourne synagogue was not a protest; It was an act of anti -Semitism. The suspect was caught and loaded Numerous criminal offenses.

Two events during the weekend, a business targeted by ties Gaza Humanitarian Foundation -BAD -supported Israeli organization massacre Unarmed Palestinians looking for help Arms company with connections to the Israeli armyIt also justifies new laws. It is important not to unite these actions against Israel with an attack instead of a Jewish worship. International Human Rights Law and our existing laws are already set to intimidation and violent protests.

So what is actually recommended as a response? The Allan government blames peaceful protests around the religious worship places that prohibit a new criminal criminal offense to wear a face in peaceful protests, which prohibit “dangerous commitment devices” (for example, a chain, bicycle lock) and used in non -violent civil disobedience.

The forbidden in facial coatings would be a first in Australia. It will reflect the measures that force people used in authoritarian states to present them to various forms of state surveillance.

Victoria Using Police face recognition software It is years without any regulatory or legislative framework to prevent confidentiality violations. When this technology is combined with the prohibition of facial coatings in protests, it will mean the obligation to submit to surveillance by other groups supporting states, companies and protesters on behalf of individuals.

Unless you spend a mining company hundreds of millions It is one of the main ways to buy in favor of politicians or to take into account wine and food decision makers, peaceful protest, people’s governments and companies. Eight hours of working days, women’s rights, First Nations Rights and protests for anti -war movement led to significant developments in our entire lives.

Many people who participate in protests are wearing facial coatings to protect their privacy and anonymity. For temporary immigrants, the results of the definition can be detention and visa cancellation. Extreme -right groups, gender -based violence and abuse of other political groups, peaceful protests against people identified with doxing, surveillance and retaliation violence has been documented.

Even with exemptions, it means that people wearing faces for a prohibition, health, disability or religious or cultural reasons will be at risk of targeting police and justify the use of a facial mask.

Adding new oppressive police powers against peaceful protests serves to increase the risk of increasing violence in increasing public demonstrations. Even if the state tries to suppress the sounds, people will not stop going to the streets on issues they care about. Donald Trump’s distribution In response to the protests of national guards in LA, it shows how the deployment of more state power in protests increases instead of reducing the risk of violence.

The prohibition of protests within the external or certain proximity to the places of worship will mean that the police can arrest those who participated in peaceful protests for a real, non-discriminatory purpose-for example, protests against the political activities of their religious institutions of their religious institutions.

In addition, due to many places of worship, there will be an undesirable result of making large areas of the state for peaceful protest. He already challenges similar laws in NSW contrary to the constitution.

Together, these laws, which would provide extraordinary powers against people who raise their voices against injustice against injustice, would prevent the participation of marginal groups in protests and the freedom of expression of the Victoria government to protect.

Ultimately, he would have done nothing to prohibit facial covers in peaceful protests and prohibit protests outside the places of worship, and to prevent the weekend. Prime Minister Allan knows that. Nevertheless, NSW Premier Chris Minns is stuck in the same reactionary law and sequential joy, seeing repressive anti-measures based on fear, in response to what we now know is an opportunistic penalty conspiracy.

Encouraging people to express their political views in a peaceful way is the antidote of unpleasant forms of protest and is something that should facilitate and facilitate all governments. At such times, we should be able to rely on our politicians to take measures to address the main causes of racism and hatred, not to divide and panic with their misleading and knee -shaking reactions.