Sixteen Palestine solidarity activists arrested during a pro-boycott
demonstration have been cleared of the charges of “trespassing” and “besetting”
by an Australian court. The 23 July ruling has been hailed as a “landmark
victory” for freedom of expression and for the campaign to defend the rights of
Palestinians (“
‘Landmark
victory’ for Max Brenner protests,” ABC News, 23 July 2012).
The 57-page decision by Magistrate Simon Garnett brought an end to a
year-long struggle by the protesters.
The activists were among 19 people
arrested
on 1 July 2011, at a peaceful demonstration outside the Max Brenner chocolate
shop in Queen Victoria Square, which is located within the Queen Victoria
shopping precinct in central Melbourne. The protest was organized by the
Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid and sought to highlight the complicity of
the company
Max Brenner
Chocolate and its parent company, the
Strauss Group, in
Israel’s occupation and
apartheid policies. The
action was the fourth protest against the company since December 2010.
The Strauss Group is one of Israel’s largest food and beverage companies. On
its website, the Strauss Group has highlighted its support for the Israeli
military, providing care packages, books, games and sports and recreational
equipment for soldiers. In particular, Strauss has boasted of its support for
the
Golani and
Givati brigades,
who have a long record of human rights abuses against Palestinians and in
Lebanon.
Both brigades were heavily involved in
Operation Cast
Lead, Israel’s 2008-09 assault on the Gaza Strip, which resulted in the
killing of approximately 1,400 Palestinians, including approximately 350
children. Strauss initially removed information about its support for the two
brigades from its English language website but information about the company’s
support for both brigades remained on their Hebrew language site for some time
before it too was removed.
The 16 activists were charged with offenses under the Summary Offences Act
(1966). All of the activists were alleged to have “wilfully and without lawful
authority beset premises” and to have engaged in “wilful trespass,” while a
small number of those arrested were also accused of a number of other charges,
including “hindering,” “resisting” and “assault.”
Video evidence contradicts police testimony
The police’s case against the activists was contested over 17 days beginning
on 1 May this year. Evidence was given by 26 police officers and four civilians,
including the manager of Max Brenner and the manager of the Queen Victoria
shopping center and two other staff members.
Almost five hours of video footage of the demonstration and arrests, shot by
protesters, police and closed-circuit security cameras, were viewed by the
court. However, in numerous instances, the sworn statements and evidence given
by police officers was in stark contrast to the video evidence shown.
Witnesses for the police case were subject to intense cross-examination by
lawyers defending the 16 activists — in particular about the discussions which
took place between police and QV management prior to the demonstration last
year. At the end of the hearing, the lawyers acting for the protesters submitted
a “no-case” to answer, asking Garnett to dismiss all charges.
Garnett upheld the no-case submissions in all 16 cases relating to the main
charges. A number of the other charges are still being contested.
“Lawful right”
In his ruling, Garnett stated that Queen Victoria Square was a public space
and that protesters had a lawful right to be there and thus were not engaged in
“wilful trespass.” Garnett ruled that because the shopping center had a contract
with Melbourne City Council which requires it to keep the square and laneways
located within the shopping precinct open to the public 24 hours a day, seven
days a week, management “did not have the legal authority to apply conditions on
members of the public who wished to enter QV or the laneways.”
Garnett also ruled that “the conduct of the protesters did not promote
violence,” and there was no evidence to suggest that the protesters had any
criminal intent. According to Garnett, “the protesters had a lawful right to
enter QV Square without restriction. They had a lawful right to conduct the
political demonstration.”
In dismissing the “besetting” charge (obstructing or impeding the right to
leave a premise), Garnett noted, “In my opinion, it cannot be said that it was
the actions of the protesters that caused any obstruction, hindering or
impediment to members of the public from entering Max Brenner’s, if they chose
to do so.”
Instead, he said it was “the establishment of the police lines” at the front
of Max Brenner’s which extend across the square and nearby laneways “that caused
the obstruction, hindrance and impediment to members of the public.” Garnett
found there was no evidence that the protestors had any “hostile intent.” The
protestors had engaged peacefully with the public who had been passing by or who
were sitting in the Chocolate Bar.
While Garnett ruled that the Victorian Police did not act illegally in
arresting the activists, he noted that some of the police actions had been
heavy-handed and that “unreasonable force” had been used in some arrests. Video
footage of the arrests viewed by the court had shown that one of the arrested
protestors was put in a chokehold and lost consciousness, while several other
protestors were dragged by their feet across the square and one of the arrested
protestors had been put in a headlock.
“Exonerated”
Robert Stary, a
lawyer representing a number of the activists, told journalists that the
protesters had been “completely exonerated” by the ruling.
“The judge ruled that there
was nothing unlawful engaged in in the activity of the protesters; there was no
breach of the peace, they were not involved in any other conduct in the protest
itself that would constitute a disturbance [and] in a public place; they had the
right to express themselves in that manner,” he said.
Stary noted that the ruling has “very, very wide ramifications,” particularly
in relation to the right to engage in political and industrial protests in
public spaces.
“Firstly, police should not
get involved in political protest or industrial disputes. They should not be
criminalized,” said Stary. “People should be entitled to express their views, if
they oppose the occupation of the Gaza Strip or the West Bank; they should be
entitled to say so.”
Decision to arrest made before demonstration
The arrested activists noted in the immediate aftermath of their arrests in
2011 that the police attack on the peaceful action in Melbourne not only
highlighted the increasing attacks on civil liberties and freedom of speech by
the state government in Victoria, but that it also highlighted the increasing
attempts to criminalize Palestine solidarity activism both in
Australia and
internationally.
This was borne out by evidence given by the Victorian police during a bail
variation hearing on 27 July 2011. During the hearing, the Victorian Police
confirmed that the decision to arrest activists was made before the
demonstration and that this decision had been made after discussion with Zionist
organizations, the Victorian government, QV Center management and the management
of Max Brenner. The Victorian Police also confirmed that they had deliberately
targeted activists who they believed to be leaders of the protest.
Reports in the
Australian
Jewish News also confirmed that in April 2011, the
Jewish
Community Council of Victoria had made representations to the Victorian
police and had called on them “to stamp down harder on aggressive protesters”
(“
Police
questioned as protests turn violent,” 15 April 2011) .
Similar calls for government and police crackdowns on activists urging
boycott, divestment and
sanctions (BDS) against Israel were made in June 2011 in the New South Wales
state parliament (“
Police
called to action on BDS,”
Australian Jewish News, 24 June
2011).
A month later,
Vic
Alhadeff, the chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies confirmed
that the various calls for police and government crackdowns on BDS activism was
part of “a nationally coordinated strategy” developed in conjunction with the
Israeli
foreign ministry (“
BDS:
to protest or not to protest?”,
Australian Jewish News, 29 July
2011).
Smears in Murdoch media
Following the Melbourne court ruling, one of the arrested activists, Omar
Hassan, told The Electronic Intifada that Garnett’s decision was a “triumph for
free speech, in particular the right to campaign for Palestine.”
Hassan noted that the magistrate’s ruling “cut against the lies of the
Murdoch press, that we were violent, anti-Semitic and fanatical.” He was
referring to smears made against Palestine solidarity campaigners in media
outlets owned by the tycoon
Rupert Murdoch (“
Prominent
Australians fight anti-Semitism with hot chocolate,”
The
Australian, 28 July 2011).
In the three months following the arrests the Murdoch press ran at least 16
articles on the Melbourne protests and Palestine solidarity activism in
Australia, the majority of which were negative. Palestine solidarity campaigners
were regularly denounced as “anti-Semitic” and compared to Nazis (“
The campaign against the Max
Brenner protesters,” ABC, 22 August 2011).
Another protester, Louise O’Shea, told The Electronic Intifada that the
dismissal of the charges against the demonstrators “shows that it is worth
standing up for your rights against the police, government and corporations, as
well as the
pro-Israel
lobby.”
O’Shea pointed out that while the proceedings against the peaceful
demonstrators were “an attempt to intimidate us from taking a stance in support
of Palestine, what we went through is nothing compared to what the people in
Palestine experience and have to deal with every day.”
James Crafti,
who was also one of the 16 defendants, told The Electronic Intifada that the
court victory was significant because “Australia is one of an increasingly small
number of countries who are still prepared to bend over backwards to support
Israel and both major parties in Australia, at both state and federal levels,
[and] have made it clear that they are prepared to use police force to repress
people’s right to freedom of speech and to try and silence pro-Palestine
solidarity campaigning.”
Crafti, who is Jewish, noted that “while we were arrested for daring to stand
up for Palestinian human rights, the Israeli state continues to carry out war
crimes and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people and are not held
to account for their occupation and apartheid practices.”
“The fact that Israel and
the companies that support these practices are not the ones on trial, is an
injustice itself,” he said. “When we start to see Israel on trial in the
International
Court of Justice and the companies that profit from Israel’s occupation
[are] put on trial, that is when we will see real justice emerging.”
Kim Bullimore has lived and worked in the West Bank, is a member of the
Melbourne Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid and was a co-organizer of the
first national Australian BDS conference, which took place in 2010. She has a
blog at livefromoccupiedpalestine.blogspot.com.
