Guest Post: I read it so you don’t have to: what the IPCA report re: protests actually says (can we start paying attention to the details, please?)
A guest post by Lucy Rogers:
Within hours of the 156 page Independent Police Conduct Authority report coming out on 18 February everyone seemed to have an opinion on it. There seemed to be an immediate consensus that it was a threat to free speech and I saw someone on Twitter say dismissively that the IPCA’s response to police misconduct at Albert Park was to give more powers to the police. I mention in passing that by far the most stupid response I have seen was the following cartoon by Emma Cook:
(It’s so out of touch with reality it’s unreal. The report covered two Israel/ Palestine related arrests: Daniel Maxwell’s case and mine. Maxwell was waving an Israeli flag and I was holding a sign criticising the pro-Palestine protesters for being hypocrites. The idea that the IPCA’s report is motivated by hostility for innocent pro-Palestine protesters is downright absurd.)
Anyway, suffice it to say that I suspect many people criticising the report haven’t actually read it. (In fact, my nasty, cynical side thinks the only people who are going to read it in full are politicians, academics and me.) Having read it in its entirety, I have noticed some points of critical importance that absolutely nobody seems to be pointing out:
The report recommends making it “mandatory” to notify the police of certain categories of protest 21 days in advance, but does not recommend making it a criminal offence not to do so. Whether or not you agree with the proposal, this is an enormously important point. If you’re curious as to why the IPCA is recommending what arguably amounts to an optional notification system or why a protest would voluntarily provide notification in advance, I suggest reading the report in its entirety but in particular the thoughtful arguments set out in paras 198-200.
The report makes important points about this proposal. I shall list only four:
- Every other democracy in the world requires protest organisers to provide more advance notification of protests to Police than New Zealand does (in fact, pretty much all we have are a collection of disused council bylaws applicable only in certain parts of NZ.)
- The IPCA’s proposed reforms are on the moderate end of the spectrum relative to overseas (where in some places, like the UK, it is a criminal offence not to provide police with notification of a protest in advance.)
- The development of social media means that protests are being organised far more quickly than in the past, making it difficult for police to arrange the deployment of adequate staff at short notice (to say nothing of organising, say, traffic management plans). For example, police were provided with only two days’ notice of a major protest in Riccarton recently. By contrast, you can imagine that in the pre-internet era to sufficiently advertise a protest one might have to take out an advertisement in a local newspaper and wait for people to see it.
- The notification regime would apply only to certain limited types of protest. The report acknowledges “[a] blanket requirement for notification of every assembly in a public place, enforced by criminal penalties, would be unjustified” and says that part of the reason for this is that it would be “an unreasonable limitation on spontaneous protests” (para 201).
I am not saying I agree with the report (in fact, I have some criticisms of it) but I think it at least merits a fair hearing. My own thoughts on the proposal both praise and fair criticism will be forthcoming in due course. But I do have a practical suggestion for the IPCA: issue a condensed summary of such reports in future which are more accessible to members of the public.