On Saturday 6th June, protestors across Australia turned out for rallies in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter uprising in the US and to take a stand against this nation’s own ugly history of black deaths in custody. The most contentious was the Sydney black lives matter protest and vigil.
With public gathering restrictions of more than 10 people still in place in NSW, the event went through a tumultuous 24hrs before finally being deemed ‘lawful’ at 2:45pm on Saturday – a mere 15 minutes before it was due to commence, and with tens of thousands of people already gathered.
Real Quick: What Happened?
Here’s the basic breakdown of how the lead up to the Sydney black lives matter protest went down:
- A vigil for George Floyd, David Dungay Jr and to protest black deaths in custody was planned for 3pm on Sat 6th June at the address for the Department of Corrective Services
- Paperwork for a public assembly submitted for 50 people at this address
- Facebook event page quickly amasses more than 10,000 people ‘attending’
- Event organisers update public assembly application to 5000 attendees a new location at Town Hall
- NSW Police take organisers to NSW Supreme Court on Fri 5th June
- Police representatives argue that:
– The gathering is too large, posing extreme public health risk
– The revised event details invalidated the original application, effectively making this a ‘new’ protest that had not been applied for with the necessary 7 days notice - Representatives for the organisers argue that:
– The original paperwork was filed with the required 7 days notice
– The protest would be safer with police support, specifically referencing road blockades that would give protestors more space to spread out
– The late notice of the legal challenge was unlikely to deter people from attending regardless of the outcome - Decision handed down at 8pm by Justice Desmond Fagan.– He deems the gathering is illegal primarily due to the public health risk it would create by disregarding NSW’s COVID-19 restrictions
- Organisers challenge the decision in NSW Court of Appeals on the morning of Sat 6th June – the day of the planned event
- Chief Justice Tom Bathurst overturns the decision, deeming the gathering lawful at 2:45pm
- Event goes ahead as planned from 3pm
How did the Sydney Vigil compare to the Anti-5G Protest on 30 May?
Supporters of the vigil drew comparisons to an Anti-5G Protest that took place in Sydney (as well as Melbourne and Brisbane) on Saturday 30 May – exactly one week prior – calling out that NSW Police did not try to block this event in the courts.
Here’s how they stack up against each other:
| ANTI 5G PROTEST | END BLACK DEATHS IN CUSTODY VIGIL |
| NSW Restrictions: No outdoor public gatherings allowed (referenced link shows the new rules from June 1 – as this rally was in May, it would not apply) | NSW Restrictions: Outdoor public gatherings of up to 10 people allowed |
| Media reported 500 in attendance, organisers claim it was between 2000 and 3000 | Media is reporting 20,000 in attendance |
| Paperwork submitted to NSW Police with 7 days notice and approved | Original paperwork submitted with 7 days notice. Organisers say paperwork amended to reflect increased numbers and new location after the 7-day period |
| Protestors not wearing masks or gloves | Majority of protestors wearing masks and gloves |
| No arrests made (although a prior protest in Melbourne on 10 May saw 10 arrests, including 2 organisers, for failure to comply with social distancing orders) | Three arrests made: two for an ‘affray’ (same incident) and one for breach of the peace |
What does all this mean?
Unsure. When Chief Justice Bathurst reveals the reasons for overturning the decision, we will update this piece. Combined with the reasons for the original ruling, this could set a precedent for police handling of public protest in NSW (and potentially, by extension, Australia).
Editor’s Note: NSW Police may have assumed that the Anti-5G protests would remain a relatively small, fringe group and did not forsee issues controlling a group of 500; by contrast, knowing that the turnout for the Black Deaths in Custody vigil would likely be more than the indicated 5000 (which it was) and comparing this to the more confrontational protests in the U.S, identified this event as one that posed a measurably ‘greater’ threat to public safety and order.
That line of thinking might be understandable, even justifiable. However, when both events clearly break state gathering restrictions, does the public have a right to expect consistent application of police powers… especially when that is the very thing they were protesting against?
Do you find these news explainers valuable? Please consider supporting Zee Feed by purchasing our book How to Win Every Argument. It has the As to your Qs on the 15 biggest topics facing the world today 🤓 Buy it here now.