Australia’s controversy over the arrest of a climate activist

• Deanna “Violet” Coco, who demanded more action on climate change, shut down one lane of rush-hour traffic on the Sydney Harbor Bridge for 28 minutes in April.
• There are five lanes on that bridge, and Mark Davis told sources that she only blocked one for a brief period of time. He noted that her co-accused escaped from prison.
• The environmental activist’s “selfish emotional actions” had caused “entire city to suffer” said magistrate.

Deanna “Violet” Coco, who demanded more action on climate change, shut down one lane of rush-hour traffic on the Sydney Harbour Bridge for 28 minutes in April.

She would receive a 15-month prison term for those 28 minutes.

An Australian judge sentenced Coco to prison last week after she admitted to breaking traffic laws, lighting a flare, and disregarding police commands to move on, in a decision that has received criticism from around the world.

According to Magistrate Allison Hawkins, the environmental activist’s “selfish emotional activities” caused a “entire city to suffer.” When you pull such infantile tricks, you harm your cause.

In eight months, Coco will be eligible for release, but her attorney intends to appeal the verdict because he believes it is “extraordinarily harsh” and “baseless.”

There are five lanes on that bridge, and Mark Davis told the sources that she only blocked one for a brief period of time. He noted that her co-accused escaped from prison.

“This is practically unprecedented.”

In what “style of life”?

The case’s conclusion instantly caused a commotion. Small demonstrations were conducted all around Australia, and politicians and human rights organisations spoke out against the sentencing.

The case, according to Human Rights Watch researcher Sophie McNeill, sends a dreadful message to everyone in the world.

As a democracy that ought to be setting the bar for human rights in the region, Australia is instead imprisoning nonviolent campaigners, the activist claimed. “We’re continually calling on these authoritarian countries to treat peaceful protestors fairly and to not arrest them,” she said.

Clément Voule, the UN’s special expert on peaceful assembly, expressed his “concern” at Coco’s statement.

He declared that nonviolent demonstrators “never should be criminalised or imprisoned.”

Others are opposed. In Australia, there has been much discussion regarding whether or not activists, whether violent or nonviolent, should have the right to interfere with other people’s lives or companies.

A few “anarchist demonstrators” could not “bring this city to a standstill,” despite the New South Wales (NSW) state government’s claims that it is “on the side of climate change action.”

This Monday, Premier Dominic Perrottet applauded the choice to imprison Coco and declared that demonstrators “should have the book thrown at them” if they wanted to endanger our way of life.

David Shoebridge, a political rival, responded, “Wait till the premier hears about how seriously climate change will endanger our way of life.”

Alister Henskens, Coco’s own uncle and a minister in the state administration, agreed that “nobody is above the law” and praised the judgement. Likewise, both sides posted similar remarks on social media.

Coco claimed in a video that she didn’t want to be protesting in this way, but that it was necessary due to the climate emergency to “get in people’s way.”

She admitted that it was uncomfortable and unpleasant, but acknowledged that it was essential because lives were at risk.

Trend of stricter legislation

However, some contend that the true problem with Coco’s case is that it highlights a wider statewide crackdown on protests.

She is one of the first people to get a term under new state rules that increased the severity of the punishments for blocking vital infrastructure, such as roads, train lines, tunnels, and bridges.

Victoria and Tasmania similarly passed rules earlier this year toughening the penalties for certain types of obstructive protests, including longer jail terms and higher fines.

There have been several contentious hotspots during the epidemic era. While demonstrating against Australia’s severe lockdown regulations, hundreds of individuals were detained, some for violent offences.

In another case, two women who planned a nonviolent Black Lives Matter march in Melbourne were also prosecuted for violating public health regulations.

According to politics and law expert Ron Levy, such crackdowns will put some Australians’ faith in the nation’s liberal democratic protections to the test.
However, he asserts that Australia is a “utilitarian” society that frequently prioritises the “public good” over the rights of individuals. That implies that policies like these frequently have public support.

According to Dr. Levy, “It’s possible that the more bodily repercussions there are for your speech, the less vigorously we’re going to guard it.”

The problem, according to Ms. McNeill, is not that lawbreakers can’t be punished; rather, it is with how disproportionately harsh the penalties are.

Violet Coco, a nonviolent climate activist, was sentenced to 15 months while those accused of drunk driving, assault, or drug offences only received fines or suspended sentences, the author claims.

The “chilling effect”

Among those who think the laws are “politically motivated” and intended expressly to intimidate climate campaigners is Ms. McNeill.

Regardless of their intended audience, it is generally acknowledged that they could have a deterrent effect on protests in general.

According to Dr. Levy, the courts might step in to invalidate the law. A request to have the High Court of Australia do just that has already been made by two ladies from NSW.

It has previously occurred. An earlier version of Tasmania’s restrictions were eliminated in 2017 after being declared illegal by Australia’s highest court.

However, higher courts have also supported what legal experts claim are related statutes. In 2019, two pro-life campaigners were unsuccessful in their attempt to overturn the prohibition on their protesting within 150 metres of abortion facilities.

According to Dr. Levy, “The choice usually depends on how well tailored the law is – is it too imprecise, does it go too far?”

He claims that a major concern will be the utilisation of lengthy prison sentences.

“This does seem very excessive, and as a former criminal prosecutor myself, I can tell you that prison time is relatively unusual and it should be utilised in limited instances.”

The “true slap,” according to Mr. Davis, is that his client was refused bail prior to her appeal, which is unusual for a non-violent offender.

“Normally, you have to be quite horrible to get denied.”

Next week, he plans to appeal the bail judgement, but in the meantime, he claims Coco is “trapped in a cell.”

It’s a disappointing outcome.

Also Read

Worst air quality in financial capital of India

Mumbai, India's financial hub, has recently seen "extremely poor" air quality. During...