Blocking of a public thoroughfare by protestors is not a peaceful act

Jul 01, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

In the United States, particularly in recent times, violent protests have erupted following killings of suspects. But in Guyana, the violence broke out, not following the killing of Quindon Bacchus but following reports that the police rank, who is alleged to have fired the fatal shot that killed Bacchus, was ordered by the courts to be placed under open arrest rather than close arrest.
Given that the violence erupted in response to news concerning the nature of his alleged assailant’s status of confinement prior, in some jurisdictions in the United States, the lawyers would have already approached the court with an application that in such circumstances, an accused could not be assured of a fair trial within the jurisdiction.
Many years ago, a man named Arnold Rampersaud was tried three times on a charge of murder. When he was first brought to trial at the New Amsterdam High Court, the State filed an application for the trial to be moved to Georgetown. It contended that a fair judgment could not have been had in Berbice since the shooting was a protest against road tolls on the Corentyne highway.
A policeman is presently under open arrest pending the completion of the investigation into the fatal shooting of Bacchus. If per chance, the policeman is charged, there is nothing which can prevent his lawyers from challenging his right to a fair trial in the East Coast jurisdiction.
If the matter goes to a High Court trial, the defence can argue that the right to fair trial had been prejudiced by the protests. This is something which the protestors may not have factored into their actions.
The protestors also seem to be of the opinion that it is lawful to blockade the public roads. They need to disabuse themselves of this belief.
The right to peaceful assembly and protest is a protected right. But that right is only protected so long as the protests are peaceful and do not impinge on the rights of others. That is, the exercise of the right to demonstrate is only lawful when it does not interfere with the rights and freedoms of other persons.
The blocking of a public thoroughfare infringes on the rights of others to freedom of movement. It is therefore unlawful and is not a peaceful act. The police are also within their rights to intervene to restore public order or to prevent a breach of the peace or ensure public safety.
However, in Guyana there has been much confusion between the right to demonstrate and the right to cause disturbance. There are some individuals and organisations that are of the misguided view that unless protests create disturbance they are not effective.
Much of the tragedies which have occurred during protest action have been as a consequence of the failure of the organisers to distinguish between a peaceful demonstration and a disturbance. A disturbance, including through blocking of public thoroughfares, is not lawful and is not a legitimate form of protest.
From the shooting of sugar workers at Enmore in 1948 to those killed a few years ago during protests at Linden, people have been led to believe that preventing the free movement of others is a legitimate form of protest. At Enmore, the striking workers tried to prevent other workers from entering the workplace.
The Linden Commission of Inquiry Report found that at the centre of the circumstances surrounding the events at the bridge was the breach of the conditions imposed in relation to a march by the protestors. The COI believed that had the protestors responded favourably to the withdrawal request made by the police, the result of the event would have been completely different.
The COI found that there were conditions attached to the permission for the march and that these conditions were breached. And that was the source of the problems which ensued.
The Commissioners found that the bridge was blocked at several points both by persons and foreign material, e.g. logs. Persons going about their lawful business were unlawfully denied access to the bridge and some were set upon and beaten. They noted that in those circumstances, the police had an obligation to prevent the blocking of the bridge and the assault of persons.
In their report, the Commissioners said, “The justice of a cause seldom if ever justifies a breach of the Constitution and certainly in this situation, we are of the view that, whilst we empathise with the citizens, resorting to unlawful means could not have been condoned by the police.”
The Commissioners argued that the organisers must accept some responsibility for what transpired since blocking of the bridge was unlawful and unconstitutional. They sounded a caution when they said: “Organisers of and participants in demonstrations, we hope, will agree that obedience to the law in carrying out justifiable demonstrations can enhance their cause amongst well thinking members of the society whilst behaviour that is chaotic can cause mayhem, death, injury and alienate empathisers.”
Protests do not need to create a disturbance to be effective. The most effective protests in recent times did not involve the blocking of any roads. The peaceful but large protests against the parking meter contract led to the abandonment of the scheme.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---