Man against the machine!  Capital v labour!  Big business against the Individual!  David against Goliath!  Epithets of imbalance that could all equally express the crusade of climate protest against business and government perceived as permitting and protecting the ongoing pollution that wreaks havoc upon the natural environment and progressively propels the earth towards the tipping point of irreversible climate change.

There is plainly a progressive upswelling of dramatic civil protest in opposition to climate damaging mining and industrial activity, much of it designed to conspicuously draw attention to the activity perceived as wreaking havoc.  Such protest is designed to be conspicuous and, in the process, disrupts the activity opposed or some aspect of civil life.  The optics are carefully structured to draw as much media attention to the protest and the issue as possible.

State governments have in turn sought to legislate to criminalise such protests and give sentencers the potential to pass prison sentences and swinging fines upon individuals.  Individuals who are passionately committed to a brave crusade against despoilation and who frequently have extremely limited financial means to pay astronomical fines.

Climate protest is an expression of desperation and a coordinated cry for help for the planet for a cause that plainly affects all humans living and unborn equally. To criminalise activities undertaken in the pursuit of such a selfless cause seems to entirely miss the point.  Protestors become martyrs and protestors achieve their aim but at what personal cost?

Recently I represented a young lady who had done no more than attend the chalking of the Mount Street pedestrian bridge in the Perth CBD with washable chalk to take some photos of the words and symbols for the purposes of furthering the objects of the protest group Extinction Rebellion.  The young lady was charged under the Graffiti Act (W.A.) as aiding and abetting the works of graffiti; the Graffiti Act was the vehicle of the prosecution because there wasn’t actually any criminal damage.

Prior to trial the young lady’s home was the subject of a search warrant; she was interviewed under caution and various items seized from her including her mobile phone.  Many months later at trial in the Perth Magistrates court, the magistrate found that there was no case to answer as simply taking photos could hardly be classed as aiding and abetting graffiti.  Nevertheless, this relatively trivial case illustrates the lengths to which the police are prepared to go to enforce the criminalisation of climate protest.  Had the young lady been convicted she would have had a declarable criminal record and had her visa to remain in Australia revoked (she was English).

There needs to be a proportionate response to the enactment of criminal legislation and a recognition that politicians are elected to reflect and protect the concerns of those whom they have the privilege to represent and not oppress them in the name of big business and tax raising at any cost.