A "right" to protest...

It is an interesting concept isn't it? We talk about it as if it is an absolute. If we don't like something then we can "protest" about it. We don't live in one of those "undemocratic" places where we might find ourselves flung in a cell and forgotten about or even shot because we disagree with something.

But it isn't an absolute. Protesting comes with responsibilities as well as rights.  We can't break the laws of the land and then protest some more when we are punished for doing just that. Mind you at many a protest people are given a warning to cease breaking the law and "move on". There is a fine balance there.

There is also another sort of responsibility that many protestors seem to forget - and that is our responsibility towards other people. It is all too easy to forget that when we want to be heard, when we believe we are right. There is also a tendency to ignore inconvenient facts and not want to accept  that what we want to be the case may not actually be the case.

I have been thinking about this because of the "protests" which have been taking place recently. In one instance some of those who are not vaccinated are demanding the "right" to return to work. Some of these people are in our police force. They have the support of the anti-mandate crowd. They are saying "my body, my choice". 

I say "fine, if you don't want to be vaccinated then it is up to you but don't expect to come back to work".  Why? Because an occupation like that often brings you into contact with very vulnerable people who may not have been vaccinated. What is more they may not have been vaccinated through no choice of their own. At this point your responsibilities towards other people are greater than your individual rights. 

I know that won't be a popular viewpoint with some people but I am using my right to "protest" and state my view via this blog. In doing so I have to trust I have not harmed anyone. I certainly do not intend to do harm.

The wider "protest" movement has moved on from the state to the nation's capital. Here they are protesting in their thousands. They are getting a great deal of publicity...although not quite as much as their Canadian friends. It's all very well but there is an enormous flaw in what they are protesting about. They are blaming the federal government for the vaccination "mandates" and holding the Prime Minister responsible.  The problem with this is that it is an issue over which the Prime Minister has no control. Vaccination mandates are a state matter, decided for the state by the state. The Prime Minister can possibly tell a Premier that he doesn't like something but, if it is within the powers of the state's constitution and not overridden by the federal constitution, he can do nothing about it. 

The protestors of course do not want to listen to this. It would spoil their "fun". They are aiming on being as disruptive as possible. They want the maximum amount of coverage. With a federal election coming up it is convenient to blame the present government - just as it was convenient to blame the Prime Minister for being on holiday when fires broke out. It matters not at all that the vaccination mandates and the fire fighting problems are state issues and responsibilities.

Is it any wonder that my "tweet" suggesting that someone from the ANU Law School should be sent over to give the protestors a short lecture in Constitutional Law did not go down well?