Member

Furthermore, Clause 140 leaves the definition of the area in question entirely at the discretion of the police. This power permits the police to move a demonstration to a different part of the same square, another part of town or even a difficult-to-reach rural area. Similarly, Clause 140 does not specify within what timeframe disruption would have to be repeated to be considered cumulative. The suggestion that so-called “cumulative disruption” should be taken into account in considering conditions for restrictions on or prohibitions on protests is also disproportionate. Why should one person’s right to protest be extinguished simply because somebody else has already protested in the same location, about the same cause or a different one?