What is ‘Strategic Incapacitation’?

What is ‘Strategic Incapacitation’ and why is it important for activists to understand it?

Photo: MALS – Police cordoning an Extinction Rebellion protest on Princess Bridge. September 2019

This is an excerpt from our recent Legal Observer Report: The Policing of the IMARC Protests

A PDF copy of the full 45 page report is available here.

Melbourne Activist Legal Support has tracked the rise in coercive and excessive crowd control tactics by Victoria Police over several years at protest events throughout Victoria.[i]

Victoria Police’s approach to protests has been characterised by a lack of willingness to tolerate community disruption when unfamiliar forms of protest are used, indicated by unnecessarily aggressive arrests, the unlawful use of police powers, an unnecessarily antagonistic attitude toward people engaged in protest combined with a disregard for their dignity and welfare.[ii]

The continued misuse of OC aerosols, dangerous use of police horses, weaponry and excessive use of force is taking place in the context of a near total lack of any clear, effective accountability processes when allegations are raised.

The repertoire of public order tactics employed by Victoria Police reflect the rapid expansion of the Public Order Response Team (PORT) as the primary riot control capacity in Victoria, and the intelligence and strategic planning centered within the Operations Response Unit (ORU).

See: Who’s who in Victoria Police

Over years we have seen Victoria Police move away from a ‘negotiated management’ approach to protest policing to adopt more of an approach scholars have labeledstrategic incapacitation’, reflecting a global trend in public order policing since 2001.

Strategic Incapacitation is described as a multidimensional policing strategy characterized by the deployment of massive police presence, the use of barriers, ‘preventative’ arrests, selective use of force with an array of less-lethal weapons, combined with efforts to control both the production and dissemination of information, media management and unprecedented levels of monitoring and surveillance.[iii]

This report will argue that this tactical repertoire is dangerous and harmful when applied against defiant, disruptive but peaceful protest events and is certainly not fit for purpose in an era when Victoria Police is presenting itself as working within a ‘human rights compliant’ model of protest policing. It suggests that Victoria Police’s commitment to a human rights approach to protest facilitation is contingent upon the focus and form of that protest and varies accordingly.

‘Strategic incapacitation’ serves policing imperatives by deliberately containing and hampering and even neutralising protest movements, limiting their growth, size and political effectiveness. The sheer number of police at events and ever-present threat of violence deters new and a broader range of people becoming involved in protest groups, intimidates and scares people from public participation and serves to further the often conflictual and antagonistic attitude toward social movements from some sections of the wider public.

By applying levels of force designed for riots against peaceful protests, police, in alignment with conservative and simplistic media reporting, can successfully reframe a peaceful protest as ‘violent’ thereby adding to the existing demonisation of protest groups by some sections of the media and government. We saw this in the Victoria Police media management during the IMARC protest event.

From a policing perspective this approach serves to keep disruptive or potentially disruptive protest movements smaller and easier to control. It is very apparent that this operational imperative outweighs human rights considerations.

Victoria Police command invests a great deal of energy in ensuring that government and key public agencies sanction their tactical repertoire. This investment acts to shield parliamentarians, human rights bodies, journalists and the wider public from awareness of the substantial danger in this sort of policing. By permitting, encouraging or tolerating policing which undermines the civil and political rights enshrined in Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) we risk reducing the vital political space we need to maintain and enhance an effective democracy.

 

This is an excerpt from the Legal Observer Report: The Policing of the IMARC Protests. (published 7 December 2019). Download a PDF copy of the full 45 page report here.

Photo: MALS – cordoning the Extinction Rebellion protest on Princess Bridge, September 2019

 

 

 

 


[i] We note that numerous activists involved in the much smaller protests against the International Mining And Resources Conference (IMARC) in 2018 had their homes raided and searched by members of Victoria Police Operational Response Unit in the months following that event; they were arrested, detained and interrogated and had phones, computers and other belongings seized. Some of the charges resulting from this event are still before the court.

[ii] Melbourne Activist Legal Support: Statements of concern and protest reports can be found at: https://melbourneactivistlegalsupport.org/news-issues/

[iii] Gillham, Patrick F. 2011. “Securitizing America: Strategic Incapacitation and the Policing of Protest Since the 11 September 2001 Terrorist Attacks.” Sociology Compass 5(7):633-652.

LEGAL OBSERVER REPORT: The Policing of the IMARC Protests

Download a PDF copy of this 45 page report here.

Media: Legal observers find police ‘set tone of violence’ at anti-mining protests. Benjamin Miller, The Age, December 7, 2019.

 

Executive Summary

The police tactics, approaches and the behavior of individual police members during the IMARC protest events from Tuesday 29th to Thursday 31st October demonstrated that Victoria Police do not have the tactical or operational ability to manage peaceful but defiant protests of this nature without resort to excessive levels of coercive force that exceed their lawful powers and obligations under the Charter.

A Legal Observer stated; “From the moment we arrived at 6.30 on Tuesday, even with relatively small number of activists present the police were using violence and aggression. They were clearly not responding to ‘escalating tensions’ or ‘risks’ posed by protesters. Police set a tone of violence from the outset. Even before delegates or larger numbers of protesters arrived I witnessed police pushing people to the ground and reacting in a violent and aggressive manner.”

The protest activities that took place in the conference vicinity over the four days took various forms, including a ‘First Nations smoking ceremony, marches, a ‘die-in’, mock dinners, public speeches, musical performances, meditation, and a picket-line-style human blockade of several key entrances.

Most protest activities included or were accompanied by activists chanting, singing, or holding banners. Other blockade protests included people using superglue to attach their hands to roads or to surfaces to slow or prevent removal by police. One person was observed who had locked on to a handrail by a bicycle D-lock.

Prior to any police action, the picket involved activists linking arms and standing in lines in order to block venue entrances. A critical point to make here is that despite this configuration being disruptive and aimed at preventing access to an area or an entrance the actions of people standing in a line, linking arms were not physically threatening or violent in and of themselves (See Figure 1 above). It was the response by authorities to this protest activity that warrants attention.

We noted and were deeply concerned by the targeted arrests of protest organisers – some at the very moment they were addressing the crowd with a megaphone. The deliberate confiscating of megaphones, either during an arrest or by taking them off the ground when left unattended early on the Tuesday 29th was also concerning. This clearly limited protester’s ability to communicate political messages effectively to the large crowd and was specifically mentioned by police liaison and protest organiser’s as hampering their ability to prevent unnecessary escalations. It pointed to an antagonistic and stifling approach to the protest. More than anything it indicated police willingness to flagrantly ignore Charter rights to political expression, not to mention the freedom of political communication protected by the Constitution.

Legal observers witnessed, recorded and documented multiple incidents of excessive, unnecessary and potentially unlawful uses of force, either as a coordinated crowd control tactic or by individual police members using excessive force within a police maneuver or tactic. This policing had a series of obviously harmful physical, emotional and psychological effects on the individuals affected.

Inappropriate and mis-applied tactics

The use of force and crowd control techniques we observed being applied at the IMARC protest event were designed and developed for circumstances where police face direct physical threat.

At the IMARC protest event these same techniques were directed in most cases at people who were offering no direct physical threat to police. The police actions over those three days shocked many protestors, journalists and observers present. That people were scared, injured, and placed in excruciating levels of pain for what was an act of peaceful protest is greatly disturbing.

Victoria Police do not appear to have developed tactics and approaches that can be lawfully applied when a person is defiant or refusing to cooperate with their directives. As discussed in detail below, the law, and Victoria Police’s own internal Regulations and Guidelines clearly stipulate that OC foam cannot be used against a person who is “passively resisting,”[i] yet OC foam was sprayed in precisely these circumstances.

That stipulation is a critical human rights protection for citizens. It means that police cannot threaten or apply force solely to make a person comply with their directions unless there is a clear and proportionate rationale to do so.

Victoria Police appear not to have considered developing tactical options and approaches to managing protest events like this in the 13 years since Victoria enacted the Human Rights Charter.

This report asserts that Victoria Police cannot use the tactics we observed at IMARC and maintain their obligations under the Human Rights Charter.

It is the actions of police where use of force has been applied against protesters who were not physically threatening that will be the focus of this report.

Victoria Police Commander Libby Murphy was reported in the media as stating: “We are doing things lawfully and we are doing things in line with policy and anything that is of a concern to anyone we will review and make our own assessment.[ii]

“Everything the police are doing are [sic] predicated by the behaviour of the protesters,” declared Murphy.[iii]

Justifying or rationalising abuses by pointing to the poor conduct of some protesters is a common response by police during and after protest events such as these, and no doubt police were disturbed by the level of defiance and determination of protesters to physically blockade entrances to the conference venue, however it contradicts a basic principle of human rights protection: that the rights and dignity of a person must be observed despite the behaviour or criminality of that person or other people.

Even the most exceptional circumstances such as a state of emergency do not justify a departure from basic human rights standards for law enforcement.

 

‘Disruption’ is not a justification for unlawful assault

‘Disruptions’ occur every day throughout metropolitan Melbourne. Road works, traffic accidents, street parades, despite their potential inconvenience to ambulances, people using public roads or amenities, or getting to and from work—are accepted by the public and policed in ways which reflect that acceptance and safely facilitate their existence.

When it comes to political protest the rhetoric of ‘balancing rights’ quickly becomes a useful justification to intervene and limit protest rights rather than a genuine attempt to uphold them. We see this in the arbitrary time limits police place upon protesters standing on a road. We also see it when levels of force are used to move protesters standing outside a building that are totally disproportionate to any harms caused by the protest itself.

This claim by Victoria Police of ‘balancing rights’ also creates the misconception that police must be acting impartially. The documented tactics, behaviour, and demeanour of police observed at the IMARC event were far from impartial.[iv]

International human rights jurisprudence clearly recognises that peaceful assembly, by its very nature, is disruptive, can inconvenience, and be perceived as a nuisance by some people, but that “rights worth having are unruly things.[v]

As discussed below, even if the actions of some or a minority of people involved in an event are unlawful, this does not remove the right of peaceful assembly for others collectively. Individual actions that are unlawful committed in the course of a demonstration cannot be used to justify the removal or limitation of the collective rights to peaceful assembly and expression.[vi]

The rights to peaceful assembly, association and expression are explicitly recognised and protected within Victorian legislation and international human rights law precisely due to their importance to the establishment and maintenance of a free, equal and democratic society. The freedom of political communication is likewise protected by Australia’s Constitution.

In essence, the bar to determine whether ‘disruption’ becomes a threat to ‘public order or safety or morality’ needs to be set quite high by police, courts and authorities.  Particularly in light of the extent of disruption caused regularly by other public events mentioned above.

Any policing of civil society actions or events that limits these Charter rights must be lawful; necessary, reasonable and proportionate as set our in et Charter itself.

The United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials is also clear that police use of force must be strictly necessary and proportionate.[vii]

By refusing to move upon the direction of police, IMARC protesters were committing, at worst, very minor (Summary Act) offences. These offenses do not justify the use of batons, punches, kicks, the dangerous use of horses, or pepper spray. People should not suffer bruising, scratches, soft tissue, ligament damage and intense pain from chemical sprays for engaging in civil disobedience.

In many cases noted by legal observers, police failed to give directions, commands or orders prior to police use of force. In effect, protesters were engaged in civil disobedience in order to maintain a picket line or blockade of the conference. Despite chanting and yelling at times, the actions of the protesters, although they included periods of rapid movement and outright defiance of police directions, did not include physical violence.

Police will often use a legal construct called ‘Breach of the Peace[viii] as the reason to arrest, to move-on or use force against protesters—yet that legal term is extraordinarily vague and open almost entirely to the police member’s interpretation and ‘reasonable belief.’ It is not an offence found in the Summary Offences Act, but rather a so-called ‘common law offence’ that permits police to arrest the individual to prevent further breaches of the peace.

Figure 2: Use of police horses was particularly dangerous; Photo, Liam Petterson, Farago

 

The common law does, however, provide some guidance on what may be considered a breach of the peace. Common law courts (in Australia and the United Kingdom) have held that the following do not, in themselves, constitute breaches of the peace:

  • ‘Mere refusal of a trespasser to leave [a] premises’;[ix]
  • ‘Mere disobedience of a police direction’;[x] and
  • ‘Peaceful and non-violent’ protest, even if an activist is ‘loud and  assertive.’ [xi]

In the Max Brenner Case the court held that what constituted a ‘threat to public order’ needed to take the rights of protesters to express their political beliefs into consideration.[xii]

A colourful, loud, active protest that attracts public interest and generates robust discussion may be lawful and legitimate even if it causes inconvenience to the public.

The lawfulness of protesters’ conduct is contested. The various charges laid by police will be heard in court and are outside the scope of this report. A great many, if not most, of the charges laid by police were for an offence that would not have occurred if it were not for the police crowd control tactics employed—i.e. the offence would not have occurred were it not for the police action.

Generating chaos and confusion

Police tactics such as crowd pushes and manoeuvres directly into crowds by the Mounted Branch turned static and peaceful picket lines into dangerous commotions, and generated high degrees of distress and chaos.  The policing tactics understandably caused confusion and alarm amongst protesters.

Legal observers present at the IMARC protest stated that police “set the tone for the protest from the outset,” and that police surges into the crowd, and their hostility and aggression, was “clearly not responding to any ‘escalating tensions’ or ‘risks’ posed by the protesters.” In fact, observers noted that prior to many police manoeuvres, protesters were standing in lines, listening to speakers, singing and chanting like many protests.

The angry, surging, chaotic scenes covered in the television news footage were often the direct aftermath of a crowd surge by a phalanx of police, injurious use of force or a push by police horses into a crowd.

Much has been made in the media commentary of the chaotic, seemingly aggressive nature of the crowd behaviour.

We note that many commentators, including the Police Minister, the Premier of Victoria and the Deputy Prime Minister, would have only seen footage provided by news channels, most of which captured this chaotic, angry aftermath of a police use of force tactic. We advise commentators and external parties to consider the context of news footage prior to making broad public statements about the nature of a complex event such as this. (See Recommendation 9).

This dynamic of police actions generating chaotic and uncontrolled crowd reactions is well documented in the literature of public order policing.[xiii] Even unintentionally, police crowd control tactics can cause panic, distress, generate anger, confusion and create enormous harms far worse than the supposed offence or ‘breach of the peace’ that the tactic is intended to mitigate.   These tactics therefore affect people arbitrarily including the media, legal observers, first aiders, the elderly, the disabled, the young and the less physically robust people present. This is what we saw at IMARC.

 

Tactical options & alternative approaches

Police have a range of non-force tactical options available to them at public order events that present far less risk to everyone. As an example to illustrate this, had the disruption to the conference been a gas leak rather than a protest, police would have facilitated foot and vehicular traffic safely around the disruption, planned alternative access measures with conference organisers and sought to minimise risks to the public and maintain safety. In some circumstances this may have involved finding an alternative venue. The principles of safety and minimising risks to the public would have guided a policing response to many other significant disruptions to an event, building or public thoroughfare such as a traffic accident or medical emergency. As the protest completed soon after midday each day, police had the option to leave a protest in place for periods of time and direct conference attendees well away from the protest area.

As illustrated below (See 1. Police Negotiators) police did not take a Negotiated Management approach to this event.

Notably, the Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre has approximately 39 different access points including the car park. As part of their operations, police, undoubtedly in collaboration with building security, locked multiple entrances and left only a few open and accessible to conference attendees. Although there may have been several operational reasons for this decision, it had the effect of most conference attendees having to make their way inside the building via one of the few entrances where protesters were concentrated.   In some cases, police and private security were seen directing or shepherding attendees toward entrances already blocked by the protest picket line. Police were specifically requested not to do this by protesters engaged in police liaison roles. Whether intentional or not, this had the effect of maximising the contact between conference attendees and protesters, which in-turn meant police using the levels of force as described below in order to make a gap in the picket line.

We noted that on the Tuesday police created an entry point for delegates at the Clarendon Street entrance and protesters responded by stretching their blockade line further to prevent that entrance being used as well.

We acknowledge that the protest groups were mobile and determined to block all access to the conference if possible and that police would have been concerned about protesters entering and disrupting the conference from inside had more entrances been available.

It was noted however that by the final day of the conference, venue staff were directing attendees to other building access points, which significantly reduced police and protester contact. It remains unclear why this was not done earlier.

Overall it appears that police did not plan for or did not take up numerous opportunities for a negotiated management approach to this protest event. This is discussed further in 1. Police Negotiators below.

It remains concerning that police chose to apply coercive tactics that maximised the risks to members and the public. Police tactics shifted static, managed, and relatively well–behaved crowds into chaotic scenarios; and, utterly failed to take into account the safety, well-being, or rights of people who were protesting.

Police were obviously concerned about potential ‘breaches of the peace’ and had publically stated their concern over some protester behaviour toward conference attendees. Legal observers present did not directly observe any physical interactions between protesters and conference attendees, although we noted some reported in the media.[xiv]

In general we observed the police response to the public was plainly excessive and generated more harm than that which the police were supposedly attempting to prevent. Police teams would run out of the police line, push, shove, and in some cases arrest people who were simply holding banners or making a speech through a megaphone. Observers noted that police were often confused, reactive and often appeared unsure as to the purpose of a particular tactic.

Police use of force that falls outside police guidelines and regulations is serious and could be determined to constitute unlawful assault by a court.

This report highlights multiple incidents which, if brought before a court, or if were independently investigated, we believe would likely found to be unlawful.

Policy Rules contained in the Victorian Police Manual (VPM) cited below are mandatory and provide the minimum standards that employees must apply. Non-compliance with or a departure from a Policy Rule may be subject to management or disciplinary action.

Amongst other findings, we argue below that it is not possible for Victoria Police to deploy horses as a use of force technique and still abide by its own Use of Force policy, practices and procedures. (see Recommendation 2)

Complaints and accountability

We understand that numerous formal complaints have been submitted to either Victoria Police or IBAC since the IMARC protests. We also understand that many people have decided not to submit complaints due to lack of confidence in the current system of internally handled complaint investigation. It is of deep concern that the vast majority of the many allegations of potentially unlawful police behaviour documented in this report are unlikely to ever by adjudicated independently. To date the current police oversight body IBAC have not scrutinised the varied controversial issues with public order policing in Victoria in any systemic way.

We have included a recommendation for the Victorian Government to enact and resource a Police Misconduct and Corruption Division within IBAC that can independently investigate allegations of serious police misconduct.

A PDF copy of the full 45 page report is available here.


[i] Victoria Police Manual (VPMG Crowd Control)

[ii] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-30/climate-rally-police-pepper-spray-protesters-imarc-melbourne/11652182

[iii] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-insist-actions-showed-fine-restraint-despite-violent-clashes-with-protesters-20191030-p535wk.html

[iv] The two most prominent cases of a police demeanour could be exemplified through the reports of one police officer having been disciplined for posting a sticker on his police-issued Body Worn Camera that said, “EAD hippy,” where ‘EAD’ is slang “Eat A Dick.” Another officer was observed to have been making racist comments and was later reprimanded for flashing a white-power hand gesture, to which the media revealed a context of his apparent affiliation with white-supremacist groups on social media. In both cases, Victoria Police at first vehemently denied the reports, and even questioned the credibility of those making the claims, only to admit a short time later that they were accurate, and that they were “extremely disappointed by the situation.” These were the most publicised cases, but can reflect the general attitude and demeanour of the police presence observed throughout the IMARC event.

[v] In considering the need for tolerance of disruptive protest (whether intentional or collateral) the words of Laws LJ in Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23 are insightful:
“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them.” (at [43]).

[vi] Strasbourg case law which emphasises that a protester does not lose the right to assemble/protest peacefully unless they themselves are violent:
“an individual does not cease to enjoy the right to peaceful assembly as a result of sporadic violence or other punishable acts committed by others in the course of the demonstration if the individual remains peaceful in his or her own intentions or behaviour”. (Ziliberberg v Moldova, App no 61821/00 Admissibility decision of 4 May 2004).

[vii] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/LawEnforcementOfficials.aspx

[viii] https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4539/what-is-breach-of-the-peace.aspx

[ix] Jordan v Gibbon (1863) 8 LT 391, cited in White v South Australia (2010) 106 SASR 521 [399].

[x] R v Reid (No 2); Forbutt v Blake (1981) 2 A Crim R 28, cited in White v South Australia (2010) 106 SASR 521 [399].

[xi] Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions [1995] 1 WLR 1382.

[xii] Max Brenner (Unreported, Magistrates Court of Victoria, 23 July 2012). As a Magistrates Court case, it has limited precedential value, but it is significant as it is the first case to examine trespass laws in public places in light of the Charter.

[xiii] See for example: della Porta, D. and Reiter, H., eds., 1998. Policing protest: the control of mass demonstrations in contemporary democracies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

[xiv] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/police-clash-with-climate-activists-outside-mining-conference-in-melbourne/news-story/3426da4225b27a15848edbeb1019193c (Mining conference delegates tell of abuse by climate change protesters, The Australian, Nick Evans, Tessa Akerman and Scott Henry)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF CONCERN: Policing of IMARC Protests

Tuesday 29 October 2019

Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS) fielded a team of Legal Observers at this mornings protest events at the International Mining and Resources Conference (IMARC) that took place at the Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre
South Wharf in Melbourne, Victoria.

The protest involved activists chanting, singing, holding banners, speaking and linking arms at the entrance of the Conference centre to block the entrance in a peaceful manner.

Image may contain: one or more people and people standing

Legal Observers were present at the site from 6.30am-12.00pm, observing, monitoring and recording police conduct and interactions with protesters. Over that time the team recorded behaviour and noted several areas of concern:

Excessive use of force.

Legal observers have recorded multiple instances of police shoving and pulling protesters with such force that they were propelled to the ground. Police have been observed pushing protesters down concrete stairs and kicking protesters without giving prior warning to move on. Police were observed grabbing and pulling protesters around the neck.  Multiple injuries of protesters have been reported including one protester who was thrown into a cement wall and hit the back of his head.

Use of mounted horses for crowd control.

Police mounted branch have been recorded moving directly into crowds to push back protesters. Multiple injuries have been reported including one activist at 8.00am who received medical attention by emergency service workers with a suspected broken arm and leg. It is well recognised that horses can cause severe, bone breaking injuries.

Legal Observers noticed that the horses were visibly ‘spooked’ by the presence of a large inflatable ‘Earth’ ball. (8:15am). In light of the above, MALS calls upon Victoria Police to immediately withdraw the mounted unit from crowded areas and prohibit their use on future days of the protest event.

Use of capsicum spray and police batons.

Legal Observers recorded police officers using police batons to strike and push back protesters. Several overhead baton strikes were recorded which contravene VicPol’s baton use guidelines.  OC foam and OC spray was also used multiple times by police officers on the crowd of protesters. Despite the crowds being loud and non-compliant, it appears the use of OC spray and police batons was a measure to force compliance with a direction to move on, rather than in response to violence or serious physical threat to police or bystanders, that would warrant such use of force under common law requirements or 462A Crimes Act.

Our observations were that in numerous instances the use of force was excessive, harmful, unnecessary and was well outside of Victoria Police’s Use of Force guidelines.

Removal by police officers of identification name tags and refusal to give identification when asked.

Legal Observers have observed police officers purposely removing their name badges and turning them around to obscure their identification.

Commentary:

By refusing to move IMARC protestors are committing, at worst very minor (Summary Act) offences. These offenses do not justify the use of batons, punches, kicks, dangerous use of horses. Police have a range of tactical options available to them that do not use force (ie. leave a protest in place for periods of time – the protest completed at approximately midday) and present far less risk to everyone. Police tactics such as crowd pushes and maneuvers directly into crowds by the mounted unit turned static and peaceful picket lines into dangerous commotions and generated high degrees of distress and chaos.   Many of the charges laid by police during the event were in direct relation to the actual actions of police. (ie the offense would not have occurred were it not for the police crowd control tactic itself).

At the time of writing, there were an estimated 200+ police officers present and approximately 40+ arrests. Melbourne Activist Legal Support will be attending the blockade each morning  until Thursday 31st to continue our observations.

This is a public document and can be quoted by media.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

To support Melbourne Activist Legal Support’s work in protecting your space to protest please donate now to our crowdfunding page:https://support-activists.raisely.com/

An Open Letter to Victoria Police:

‘Disruption to others’ does not justify limiting the Right to Peaceful Assembly

6 October 2019

Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS) acknowledges the response to our recent Statement of Concern by Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius (3 October 2019)

In reply and in light of protest events planned in Melbourne for the month of October we take this opportunity to remind Victoria Police senior command and all operational commanders assigned to public order policing duties over the coming weeks of the following:

There is no basis for claiming that a protest that is deliberately disruptive to the activities of others falls outside the protection of rights to freedom of assembly;

The Right to Peace Assembly, Freedom of Association and the Right to Political Expression have far greater legal protections and recognition both within Victorian legislation and in international law than the Melbourne Flower Show, The Grand Final Day Parade, Moomba and White Night and many other similar public events regularly held in Melbourne’s CBD;

Events such as the Melbourne Flower Show, The Grand Final Day Parade, Moomba and White Night all cause significant disruption to public access to roads, public parks, through traffic, trams and vehicular access. Policing these events includes facilitating the shutting down of significant parts of the city over significant periods of time;

‘Disruption to others’ is not, nor can it be used as an excuse, rationale or justification for limiting or preventing civil society groups from enacting the Right to Peaceful Assembly and The Right to Freedom of Political Expression at public events;1

There is no commensurate ‘right not to be disrupted by other people’s activities’;

In light of the fact that political expression is the most protected by law of all forms of expression. it is arguable that peaceful protest should be facilitated over and above that provided to commercial and community events mentioned above;

We remain concerned about recent public comments made by North West Metro Region Commander Tim Hansen (Herald Sun 4/10/19), that seem to equate disruption with threats of violence as well as earlier comments by Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton. (2GB, 4/10/2019)

International human rights jurisprudence clearly recognises that peaceful assembly, by its very nature, is disruptive, and can inconvenience and be perceived as a nuisance by some people, but that “Rights worth having are unruly things.2.

Furthermore, the actions of some or a minority of people involved in an event do not remove the rights of peaceful assembly for others collectively; individual actions that are unlawful committed in the course of a demonstration cannot be used to justify the removal or limitation of the collective rights to peaceful assembly and expression; 3

The rights to peaceful assembly, association and expression are explicitly recognised and protected within Victorian legislation and international human rights law precisely due to their importance to the establishment and maintenance of a free, equal and democratic society;

In essence, the bar to determine whether ‘disruption’ becomes a threat to ‘public order or safety or morality’ needs to be set quite high.  Particularly in light of the extent of disruption caused regularly by other public events such as community festivals, parades, commercial events and road works which are not protected in legislation.

Any policing of civil society actions or events that limits these Charter rights must be
– lawful
– necessary, reasonable and proportionate, and
– in compliance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Further any limitation must be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on ‘human dignity, equality and freedom’. Decisions by public authorities to limit Charter rights require substantial evidential backing to be justifiable and cannot be based upon assumptions, opinions, operational imperatives or current practices; 4.

Melbourne Activist Legal Support will be fielding teams of trained, independent Legal Observers in the CBD at protest events during October to record, monitor and report upon actions of Victoria Police members according to their responsibilities under the Charter, the International Covenant of Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR) the Victoria Police Manual, use of force guidelines and other human rights considerations and jurisprudence;

We remind Victoria Police of the recommendations made regarding the policing of public protest events and reiterate our request that they be incorporated into operation orders and the VPM. [Statement of Concern: The Policing of Extinction Rebellion]

Responses or further inquiries regarding this open letter can be made to melbactivistlegal@gmail.com

About Melbourne Activist Legal Support

Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS) is an independent volunteer group of lawyers, human rights advocates and, law students and para-legals. MALS trains and fields Legal Observer Teams at protest events, monitors and reports on public order policing, provides training and advice to activist groups on legal support structures and develops and distributes legal resources for protest movements. MALS works in conjunction with law firms, community legal centres and a range of local, national and international human rights agencies. We stand up for civil & political rights.

To support our work please make a small donation at:

Endnotes:

1. Despite a lack of Australian case law, courts in Europe have repeatedly made clear, direct action protests, including lockons, occupations of land and other activities which are capable of being deliberately disruptive to others, fall within the scope of Articles 10 and 11 in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). In
Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom (1999) 30 EHRR 241 the court stated:
“It is true that the protest took the form of physically impeding the activities
of which the applicants disapproved, but the Court considers nonetheless
that they constituted expressions of opinion within the meaning of Article
10… The measures taken against the applicants were, therefore,
interferences with their right to freedom of expression.” (at [28])
This was confirmed in the United Kingdom in R v Roberts & Others [2018] EWCA Crim 2739 which concerned the deliberate blocking of a major road for a period of 3
days. The Court of Appeal stated: “there is no doubt that direct action protests
5 App 76900/01, 29 June 2006 fall within the scope of articles 10 and 11…“ (at [39]).

2. In considering the need for tolerance of disruptive protest (whether intentional or
collateral) the words of Laws LJ in Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence
[2009] EWCA Civ 23 are insightful:
“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are
liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or
at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them.”
(at [43]).

3. Strasbourg case law which emphasises that a protester does not lose the right to assemble/protest peacefully unless they themselves are violent:
“an individual does not cease to enjoy the right to peaceful assembly as a
result of sporadic violence or other punishable acts committed by others in
the course of the demonstration if the individual remains peaceful in his or
her own intentions or behaviour” (Ziliberberg v Moldova, App no 61821/00 Admissibility decision of 4 May 2004).

Also relevant is Moos & Anor, R (on the application of) v Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 957 (Admin) (14 April 2011) discussed at: https://www.hrlc.org.au/human-rights-case-summaries/moos-anor-r-on-the-application-of-v-police-of-the-metropolis-2011-ewhc-957-admin-14-april-2011?rq=peaceful%20assem

4. See http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CHRBB/57276.htm

#NotWithYou: Why more weapons for Victoria Police is a Very Bad Idea

In a carefully orchestrated public relations launch on Thursday 22 March, Victoria Police revealed it’s armoury of new repressive weaponry.

The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, Graham Ashton has expressed concern about how these weapons will be perceived by the public.  “We need the community to be with us on this’’ he said.  Well, we are not and here’s why.

The Operations Response Unit (ORU) received an initial $7.6 million with an ongoing ($35 million) over five years to “improve the management of large scale or high-risk public order incidents.”  The Victorian government, as part of its inappropriately named ‘Public Safety Package’ announced this funding back in 2016 and now we see what VicPol ended up buying with it.
These new weapons will be used by the Operational Response Unit (ORU) and distributed from a new hi-tech vehicle that will record evidence and can livestream to an offsite command centre. Most of these weapons have already been in use in some form by specialist units such  the Critical Incident Response Team and Special Operations Group and have come out at recent prison protests or hostage scenarios.   However this represents a significant rollout to more ‘regular’ public order police.
The only weapon that is totally new for VicPol is the VKS Pepperball firearm (pictured below). A 175 shot semi-automatic rifle that fires capsicum rounds, blunt force pellets the size of marbles or dye markers to brand people for arrest later.  These pellets can blind, maim and leave permanent injuries depending where they hit the body. (Check out the demo for it here.)   There’s footage of these guns being fired at protesters in Portland Oregan (USA) last year here.
 
The 40-millimetre rubber bullet launcher so proudly displayed by  Superintendent Tim Tully has resulted in significant injuries and fatalities around the world. Just last year a 25 year old protester was killed by a rubber bullet in Paraguay.
Stinger grenades  – (pictured below) is a pain compliance, distraction and disorientation device for ‘crowd management’, it may be hand thrown or launched in the general direction of the crowd and may be deployed for ground bursts or aerial bursts at the discretion of the operator  – It explodes releasing nine 32-calibre rubber pellets to waist height with a range of five metres.
The Flash/noise distraction grenades designed to shock and disperse crowds are routinely being used in Israel/Palestine and other conflict zones and have maimed children, can burst ear drums and  generate dangerous fear and panic in crowds.
In terms of capsicum canisters, that detonate to release a cloud of capsicum, deaths can occur if people and gas gets trapped in a confined area such as in prison cells.

Injuries from Less Lethal Weapons:  – Theodore C. Chan, MD, FACEP, Professor of Clinical Medicine, University of California San Diego Medical Center.

Instead of investing in communities these new expensive weapons increase the likelihood of violence against communities that are not valued in Victoria, t

A ‘Stinger Grenade’ mentioned above

he incarcerated and the marginalised. They will be used against teenagers at parties, against frustrated prisoners, and against citizens standing up against injustices that the government ignores.

Having observed and documented crowd control policing over the past seven years, Melbourne Activist Legal Support can safely say Victoria Police already deploy riot equipment unnecessarily, inappropriately, dangerously and in ways that infringe upon human rights. We have witnessed OC Spray being used indiscriminately, and against police’s own regulations –  on multiple occasions.
Victoria Police have stated that the main purpose for deploying these weapons is to “enhance the safety of community members and our members”. No  – these are weapons will be used against Victorian citizens.  Independent studies show that riot gear has a destabilising effect at public order events, tending to aggravate and escalate the situation and making it far more dangerous for both community and police.  Riot policing generates fear, anger, distrust and disorder.
At an event referred to during the media launch, the Milo Yiannopoulos protests in Flemington in December 2017, MALS Legal Observers witnessed police ignore hours of vitriolic racial and religious abuse of local residents by white nationalist groups, then we saw intensely provocative riot formations deployed against the very people who had experienced the abuse. Many local residents felt they they were under attack by police.
“One man who has lived at the housing estate for 15 years said he had been standing with his arms linked with other residents in a peaceful stand against the right-wing protesters who were taunting them, when they were doused with pepper-spray by police wielding batons.” –The Age 13 December 2017

Photo: Jason South

Far from justifying the purchase of these weapons, the policing in Flemington that night proved that riot policing makes things worst, and that policing in Victoria is already more intensively focused upon marginalized and ‘less-valued’ communities.
Whenever weapons like this are brought out at protests, kids parties (yes, teenage parties the spill out into the street) or during prison protests, they are routinely misused.
The almost daily misuse of OC spray by Victoria Police is a case in point.  These new weapons make the abuse of civil, political and human rights in Victoria more likely and more severe.  Under human rights law, any restrictions on protest, and any use of force, must be for a legitimate purpose and be proportionate to that aim.  We know from experience that these new weapons will be used without a justifiable purpose, against people posing no threat to police, and in disproportionate ways.

Police spraying toward a Legal Observer and toward no-one who was threatening him – in contravention of Vicpol’s regulations of use. – Melbourne, June 2017

This million dollar purchase by the Victorian government demonstrates the reach of the ever-growing Global Non-Lethal Weapons Market – a multi-billion dollar export industry in repressive technology that fuels conflicts, human rights atrocities and state repression around the world.  Law enforcement departments everywhere have been sucked in by the slick marketing of this ‘less-than-lethal’ arms industry.  Much of the repressive tech that VicPol purchases is never actually deployed (they have LRAD sound cannons for instance but never used them). Whilst civil and political unrest is very profitable for the companies driving this market, it costs taxpayers millions that could be otherwise spent on people and communities.

If the safety of the Victorian community is indeed the highest priority for Victoria Police – it should look to building trust and accountability.  If the Victorian Government is serious about community safety then investing in community resources, infrastructure and support would be far more effective and perhaps a tad less likely to infringe upon Victoria’s own Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
Police misconduct, police abuse of power, police pointing guns into crowds and dressed up like robo-cops all serve to destroy trust.  Victoria Police already have strained relationships with many sections of our community, do they really want to distance and dehumanise themselves even further?
The Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) has reported upon the disturbing trend of state governments passing draconian laws that curb civil and political rights and restricting civil society organisations to advocate.  The actual or threatened use of these sorts of repressive weapons also impinges upon our civil and political rights. If people stay away from a protest out of fear of police then their right to peaceful assembly is being restricted.  If people leave a peace assembly if they see police with weapons then their right to peaceful assembly is being restricted.

So what can we do about it?

The actual use of these new weapons is not guaranteed. Their deployment depends upon the context of the protests, the social and political climate and whether or not these weapons would be seen by media and the wider community as ‘acceptable’, ‘reasonable’ or ‘appropriate’ under the circumstances.
By ‘revealing’ these weapons to sympathetic journalists in such a careful way,  and writing to community organisations and human rights bodies that same day,  Victoria Police were essentially asking for a social license to use them. It is imperative that they are not given this.
If Victoria Police anticipate a public, media and political backlash it will deter use of these weapons.
Likewise, if they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that they may face costly litigation after these weapons are deployed then that may also serve to restrict their use.
The role of legal observers, human rights advocates and activist lawyers will be critical if these weapons are ever deployed against members of the public in Victoria

We are citizens not enemy combatants.  Do not deploy weapons on us.  #NotWithYou


Further background:

This new riot gear is part of the $2 billion Victorian State Government package that includes a massive new training facility for special operations police, a $15 million a ‘state-of-the-art, New York-style’  24/7 Monitoring and Assessment (surveillance) centre in Melbourne’s CBD.
Also included is a $227 million IT data intelligence program run by SAS Institute Australia which will merge databases and allow predictive tracking that will make the Cambridge Analytics revelations seem relatively benign.  Body worn cameras, as well as more than 3100 extra police officers are part of the package.  This is all tied up in the Andrews Government’s ‘Community Safety Statement’ which was developed in the context of an Victoria’s ongoing racialised law & order auctions between the major parties.
See also:

Who’s who in Victoria Police

About the Anti-Mask (Public Order) Laws

benny zable

Since our article Anti-Mask Laws proposed in Victoria, was published the Crimes Amendment (Public Order) Bill 2017 has been passed in the Victorian Legislative Assembly and is now law in Victoria.

This article has been updated on 21 June 2018.


PLEASE NOTE: Masks are NOT be banned at all protest events – but ONLY those held in a area that police have declared a ‘designated area’.  (See below for more detail.)


The CRIMES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC ORDER) BILL 2017 was introduced into parliament by the Victorian Attorney General, Martin Pakula to allow “new measures to prevent serious disturbances of public order, including outbreaks of violence at protests, demonstrations and other public events.”

The intense media and public outcry after the clashes between neo-nazi and Antifa groups in Coburg in May 2016 meant that the pressure was on to introduce laws that make it look like the government is doing something about this.

Since then, the rationale for these laws was also conflated with the various outbreaks of youth violence at public events such at the Moomba brawling in 2016.

DESIGNATED AREAS

To understand how these new laws  work you need to understand how ‘Designated Areas’ already work in Victoria

The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police already has the power to declare a specific area or event to be a ‘designated area’ under the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Section 10D or 10E) if they believe or assess that there was previous use of weapons in that area or during previous occasions of the event or that they assess that there is a ‘likelihood that violence or disorder involving the use of weapons will occur in that area’.

These ‘designated areas’ were introduced in 2009 to allow police to deal with the perceived rise in youth knife-related crime several years ago, which was disputed at the time.)  Designated areas are now increasingly being used in protest situations.

This provides police with additional powers to search people and vehicles without warrant within that defined area for up to 12 hours.

The new Act provides additional powers for police within those designated areas.

NEW POLICE POWERS

The Act provides additional police powers in designated areas to require a person wearing a face covering to either remove their face covering or leave the area immediately

A police officer who reasonably believes a person intends to use the kind of violent and antisocial behaviour that would constitute one of the new public order offences of affray or violent disorder created by this Act is able to direct a person to leave a designated area.

If the person refuses to comply with this order to leave, they will be committing an offence.

In detail, this Act amends the Control of Weapons Act 1990 with

1) new section 10KA(1) which would allow a police officer to direct a person wearing a face covering to leave a designated area if the person refuses to remove it when requested.

(the police officer must reasonably believe the person is wearing the face covering primarily to conceal his or her identity or to protect himself or herself from the effects of crowd-controlling substances such as capsicum spray)

NEW OFFENCES

The Act amends the Crimes Act 1958 to abolish the common law offences of affray, rout and riot and create new statutory offences of affray and violent disorder (new sections 195H or 195I)

Affray now captures all conduct that currently constitutes the common-law offence of affray. “uses or threatens unlawful violence and whose conduct would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to be terrified” – Maximum penalty 5 years

Violent disorder, committed when six or more persons use violence for a common purpose, and that conduct damages property or causes injury to a person – Maximum penalty 10 years

If committed wearing a face covering the maximum penalty rises to 7 years for affray and 15 years for violent disorder.

OUR CONCERNS

Any laws targeting protesting can dangerously impinge upon basic freedoms of speech, expression and assembly.

It is important to acknowledge that it is already a crime in Victoria to be disguised with “unlawful intent” under s 49C of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

USE OF MASKS AS POLITICAL EXPRESSION

Police already asking people to remove masks at protests. this is likely to increase with these new laws.

The new law means Police become arbiters of expression versus intent to commit violence.

THE RIGHT TO ANONYMITY

“The right to protest should not be contingent on consent to surveillance” – Liberty Victoria.

At times, particularly in circumstances where a protest is about controversial views, maintaining our anonymity may be critical to allowing freedom of association.

If attending a protest necessarily entails intrusive surveillance from the state or the threat of violence from other groups then you cannot really say we have genuine ‘freedom’ of peaceful assembly.

Furthermore, Victoria Police use of Facial Recognition Technology is currently unregulated

MASKS AS PROTECTION

Masks are commonly used at protests to protect attendeees from OC foam (Including journalists, observers, medics etc).

The use of OC, capsicum foam at protests in Victoria has skyrocketed.

It is inevitable that many people in the vicinity including other police, can be severely affected. In some incidents up to 70 members of the public were affected by spray at any one time.

Scarves, goggles, gas masks or handkerchiefs are used by journalists, media photographers, legal observers, street medics or bystanders.

This law now criminalises that practice.

THE Act CONTAINS NO EXEMPTIONS OR PROTECTIONS

Some anti-mask laws in other countries include exemptions for wearing masks for religious purposes, for theatrical productions, sporting events, parades, civil defence drills and protection from severe weather.

Some, but not all, include exemptions for political expression. There are currently no protections or exemptions in current Act.

STATUS IN PARLIAMENT

The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) examined the Bill  and referred it back to Parliament for its consideration on the question “whether or not clauses 6 and 7 (police powers in 10KA(1) etc) are suitable, necessary and proportionate limitations on the implied freedom of political communication.”

The Bill was accented to and is now law in Victoria.


The new Act can be read online here: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/claoa201732o2017432/

Some more detailed critique of the law here:  https://melbourneactivistlegalsupport.org/2017/03/14/anti-mask-laws-proposed-in-victoria/

and http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-laws-to-stamp-out-violence-at-public-events/

Last year the Human Rights Law Centre launched a report, Safeguarding Democracy, that documents the unmistakable trend of governments at national and state level steadily chipping away at free speech, a free press, peaceful assembly, open government and the rule of law – some of the foundations of our democracy.

Staying safe: Protective strategies for activists

ActorMap

Knowing how to stay safe as an activist and human rights defender (HRDs) has become ever more important. According to Frontline Defenders, more than 1000 human rights defenders were killed last year alone*, and although many governments have welcomed the UN declaration for human rights defenders, not many have put into place adequate strategies to prevent attacks on activists defending human rights. In many cases, this job is left up to activist themselves on knowing how to stay safe in their work, but depending on resources and lack of training, taking security seriously is challenging work.

Organisations like Protection International (PI) and Peace Brigades International (PBI) work in different countries with HRDs on protective strategies that can lower the chance of attacks and threats. Working together with activists and HRDs, these organisations have built a body of techniques that people can access and apply to their own work.

Here are some quick tips on staying safe in a politically charged world:

  1. Analyse yourself and your surroundings.
    A good context analysis can be an amazing resource for understanding where someone stands in this tectonic shifting world. It helps in being able to take the time to try to foresee potential consequences of actions that are being planned. Sit down, just you or with your collective and start analysing the work you do and who it affects. Who do you affect indirectly? Put it in the context of your community. Has anything that happened locally recently affected the work you do? What about nationally or internationally?
    Start small and then look at the bigger picture.
  2. Who’s who?
    Actor mapping is a great technique in understanding who your allies are, who might be an ally and who definitely is not an ally. Write down the organisations that you know are friendly, then the ones that your not sure about. Finally write down the people you are trying to target with your actions. Its ok to not know where each actor is on the spectrum, gathering more information and completing the actor map is ongoing work. Now you know who you can rely on and who you should avoid.
    Mapping your ‘enemies’ can also help you understand and have an idea of the response they’ll have if you do certain actions.Having your allies mapped out can be very useful when you are in need of support. Creating connections with collectives that can mutually help each other is part of building resilience and solidarity. If you find your self a target of digital surveillance, knowing that a group of friendly hackers are allies can be very helpful. And remember to help out when you can as well.mapping_networks
  3. Incident Register
    Start a security incident register. These are easy and practical in seeing the number of incidents you and your collective have had over a set time frame. These are used widely and help in analysing the type and frequency of threats that people receive. Nothing is to small to register. Someone suspicious outside your meetings? Your phone been calling strange numbers? Saw someone from an opposing group taking photos at a rally? Write them down. It helps to have the time, date, description of what happened, who could have been the perpetrators and who might be the target. Just like everything else, don’t worry about having all the information. Not having information on this at least tells you what you need to be looking for next time.
  4. Support network.
    Communication is vital. Having the numbers of people you trust on your phone can be a life saver. Fostering these connections with allies can make emergencies responses quick and effective. Even just as an individual, putting in the number of trusted allies on your quick dial can help in emergency situations. Just make sure you don’t make it to obvious who they are on the quick dial, in case your phone gets snatched or taken by police. Try memorising important numbers, and if you can’t, write it down in between random numbers on a piece of paper. In some cases, think about having lose change on you to make a call on a public phone, just in case something has happened to your mobile.Calling in on friends and allies can help keep track of your movements and whereabouts, especially if you think you are heading into troubling circumstances. Even in non threatening moments, doing a check in helps everyone feel safe.Having a phone tree for your cause can be very useful to get messages out for a quick response. Tying that in with the actor mapping, you can have a great overview of who are the best people to contact under what conditions. This can lead to a more effective response to emergencies and mobilisations.
  5. Data security
    It’s not all about staying safe in the physical world. Do a quick analysis of the information you work with and see if it could be considered sensitive information. Name, numbers and addresses of activists should be considered sensitive. Remember to consider time frames. Maybe information you have now is not considered sensitive but in a few years it might. Depending on the amount of information you handle that is sensitive, will determine the measures you should take on protecting it. There are great detailed guides on digital security but here is some very quick tips.

    • Try to keep your digital information safe by encrypting your devices. There are great guides out there* on how to do it on all platforms.
    • Next would be encrypting your communications.  On mobile devices Signal Messenger can encrypt your messages to other Signal users, and it’s for free.
    • Email encryption can be more complicated than using signal, but pgp encryption has come along way in being more non tech friendly.
    • Always make backups!
  6. Mental Wellbeing.
    Staying safe is all about looking after yourself, and that includes your mental health. It’s no secret that activism can be hard on peoples mental health, and many have had the all to common burn out symptoms.
    Debriefing and looking for support amongst your allies can help mitigate accumulating feelings of mental uneasiness. Speak to people you feel comfortable with after actions and demonstrations. Try to have an understanding with this person that you don’t necessarily want answers or advice, but instead just want someone to listen and provide empathy.One of the more common consequences of activism work for HRDs is working through fear and stress. Many HRDs fear not only for their own well being, but also of their families and people close to them. Taking the above actions on security is one way to address this fear. If you can analysis and try to understand the threats and potential consequences of the threats, you can at least know you are doing what you can to mitigate the risks.
    A bit of stress is usually a good thing, it helps us from getting bored, but too much of it can be overwhelming. If we are stressed for too long of a time, we can get down and depressed. This is as much about asking for help as it is trying to foster a culture of looking after yourself and one another.

13305106_1050491168368729_2641252022562073985_o

This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but it’s a start. It’s up to us to start looking at security in a more holistic sense and put into practise techniques that help us do our work better and safely.

Here is a list of great resources on security for activists.
https://holistic-security.tacticaltech.org/
https://protectioninternational.org/training-learning-publications/
http://www.integratedsecuritymanual.org/
https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/programme/risk-analysis-protection-planning

*List of resources for digital security.
https://securityinabox.org/en/
https://tacticaltech.org/
https://privacytoolsio.github.io/privacytools.io/

*https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/resource-publication/annual-report-human-rights-defenders-risk-2016