« Victory for protesters’ rights | Main | Igniting debate »
Flag that
By Steven | May 7, 2011
Anyone reading today’s front-page story on the Morse flag-burning decision has every right to be confused.
The paper correctly reports that the Supreme Court has found that it’s necessary to prove that offensive behaviour must give rise to a “disturbance of public order” before a conviction can be entered. But the paper reports that a protester was punched after the burning. Did the court decide that wasn’t a disturbance of public order?
The paper notes that:
It is illegal under the Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act of 1981 to destroy the flag with the intent of dishonouring it.
Did the court also rule on that Act, and perhaps find that it, too, required some sort of disturbance of public order?
The paper reports Bill Hodge saying the decision means the police no longer have the right to pre-emptively take action to prevent a breach of the peace. Is that what the judges say?
No, no and no.
The punch
The punch wasn’t thrown at Valerie Morse, but at another protester, who had blown a horn, then tussled with the police when they tried to remove the horn, then tried to run away through the crowd. (This is discussed in the judgment). It wasn’t in any sense a consequence of the flag-burning and the Crown didn’t allege that it was. If someone had tried to punch Valerie while the burning flag was aloft (or throw something at her or threaten her), there’s an interesting question about whether that would be the sort of disturbance of public order that the Supreme Court were talking about. After all, you can’t hold a protester responsible for the unreasonable reactions of onlookers. The thrust of the decision, I think, is that onlookers are generally required to show restraint and tolerate the views and methods of protesters, even if they despise those views or methods.
What’s more, most of the judges noted that there was some level of disturbance of public order in response to the Anzac day protest. Some at least might have been prepared to say that it was enough disturbance for her to be convicted. But they weren’t confident about the evidence, and didn’t think it was fair to hold it against her since during the trial nobody had realised how significant it was. For example, the defence might well have cross-examined harder about it.
The Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act
This wasn’t mentioned by the court at all. Valerie wasn’t charged under it. You might remember that Paul Hopkinson, who protested at Parliament against the Iraq war by burning a flag was prosecuted under this statute. You might remember that he got off on appeal. The judge said our right to freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights meant that the offence had to narrowly interpreted. It required an intent to villify the flag. Most protesters don’t have that. Most plainly use the flag as a vehicle to protest against particular government actions and policies.
That case rather made the Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act a dead letter. One of our arguments before the Supreme Court was that the prosecution shouldn’t be allowed to use the vague offence of offensive behaviour to avoid a prosecution under the Flags Act, which Parliament clearly intended to be the relevant offence. The Court didn’t address it.
Powers of arrest
I think Bill Hodge is wrong. There is no discussion in this case of the police’s powers concerning breach of the peace. They still have the power to arrest to prevent an imminent breach of the peace. This is essentially a crowd control measure, and doesn’t itself mean that an offence has been committed by anyone. This case doesn’t change that.
Topics: General | 50 Comments »
50 Responses to “Flag that”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 4th, 2020 at 12:44 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
July 2nd, 2020 at 11:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
July 16th, 2020 at 6:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
July 17th, 2020 at 11:05 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
July 24th, 2020 at 2:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
July 29th, 2020 at 8:00 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
August 13th, 2020 at 12:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
August 29th, 2020 at 1:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 4:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 8:21 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 84927 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
September 9th, 2020 at 8:10 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
September 24th, 2020 at 11:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
October 2nd, 2020 at 4:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
October 10th, 2020 at 4:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
October 11th, 2020 at 9:26 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
November 12th, 2020 at 2:12 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 70234 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 10:05 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
December 14th, 2020 at 12:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
December 16th, 2020 at 3:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
December 17th, 2020 at 6:49 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 7:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
January 1st, 2021 at 1:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 62413 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
January 1st, 2021 at 6:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 1:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 67366 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 5:38 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 5:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
January 20th, 2021 at 11:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
January 24th, 2021 at 11:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 56030 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
February 1st, 2021 at 2:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
February 5th, 2021 at 12:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 71619 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
February 9th, 2021 at 2:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 71977 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
March 1st, 2021 at 12:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 93673 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
March 6th, 2021 at 6:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
March 17th, 2021 at 10:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
March 22nd, 2021 at 10:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
May 12th, 2021 at 4:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
June 6th, 2021 at 8:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 26455 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
June 15th, 2021 at 3:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
June 21st, 2021 at 2:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 63303 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
June 26th, 2021 at 12:51 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 7:06 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 1:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 9:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
September 8th, 2021 at 10:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
September 22nd, 2021 at 7:16 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 35029 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
September 28th, 2021 at 11:08 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
October 24th, 2021 at 3:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 97625 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
November 13th, 2021 at 11:38 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]
April 7th, 2023 at 10:31 am
cheapest backlink service
qnqklkkky nxhfg giimvuo etdm rbgmewbowoxgcfn
April 8th, 2023 at 9:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=478 […]