Protest permutations

As the SJB this week filed an FR petition against the detainment of peaceful protesters on the grounds of them violating COVID guidelines on large gatherings, it brought up an unfortunate by-product of the pandemic. Namely, governments being given a free hand of sorts in cracking down on dissent.

This is something that has been brought up by rights activists across the world, most recently by the UN Chief earlier this year, who said: “Using the pandemic as a pretext, authorities in some countries have deployed heavy-handed security responses and emergency measures to crush dissent, criminalise basic freedoms, silence independent reporting and curtail the activities of non-governmental organisations.”

These are the very concerns many in Sri Lanka are growing increasingly weary of, especially as there seems to be a double standard with regard to the enforcement of COVID guidelines by the Government. Just as those protesting against the move to pass KNDB Bill were arrested, elsewhere in the island SLPP supporters lighting crackers to celebrate Basil Rajapaksa’s return to Parliament were given a free pass.

But if this inconsistent application of the law is unsurprising, what has been rather more intriguing has been the response to it. While the FR petition and the adjoining outcry on social media has been welcome, it does raise the question as to why similar crackdowns in the past weren’t met with the same outrage.

Historically, protests have often inspired positive social change and the advancement of human rights, and they continue to help define and protect civic space in all parts of the world. Protests encourage the development of an engaged and informed citizenry. They strengthen representative democracy by enabling direct participation in public affairs. This is especially important for those whose interests are otherwise poorly represented or marginalised.

The Government and public too often treat protests as either an inconvenience to be controlled or a threat to be extinguished, but the reality is the right to protest formally involves the exercise of numerous fundamental human rights, and is essential for securing all human rights. 

Participating in protests enable all people to individually and collectively express dissent and seek to influence and strengthen governments’ policymaking and governing practices, as well as the actions of other powerful entities in society. The right to protest embodies the exercise of a number of indivisible, interdependent and interconnected human rights, in particular the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to strike, the right to take part in cultural life, as well as the rights to life, privacy, liberty and security of the person, and the right to freedom from discrimination

The principles are intended to be used by civil society organisations, activists, human rights defenders, lawyers, judges, elected representatives, public officials and other stakeholders in their efforts to strengthen the protection of the right to protest locally, regionally and globally. 

In this context, maybe it’s time that we take the same energy and indignation reserved for those persecuted for their peaceful protesting this time around, primarily because it serves a wider political agenda, and remember to do the same when its less politically convenient.