The Rule of Law and a Civil Society

Two quite separate events in the media this week have caused me to think about these principles.

The death of Libya's Colonel Gaddafi may well have been nothing more that the death of the Commander-in-Chief in the front line of a civil war.  He certainly had caused the death of countless civilians both during his 42 year reign of terror in Libya and during this most recent civil war.  But there are international rules of engagement in war, especially in relation to those taken prisoner, that mean that once taken prison a person should expect to be taken into custody and dealt with through a military justice or international justice system.

Given that the people's army in this civil war were not in any way really trained for combat it is not beyond the realm of possibilities for the situation to simply have gotten out of control because people really didn't know the rules nor were they under a proper system of command.

Nevertheless, I feel disquieted by both the end result - his ignominious death and the ensuing lack of respect for his remains - and the almost gloating tone of Western leaders suggesting that the world was better off with him dead.  This is a not-too-faint echo of the circumstances surrounding the death of Osama Bin Laden in an insurgent military operation by US troops without the official sanction of the Pakistani government.

The man was a bad man, but the West loses all its moral authority if it allows others to sidestep the rule of law in dealing with bad people, just because they are bad and this way is much easier.

The second event, and one much closer to home concerns the removal by police of unarmed non-violent demonstrators from a number of our city centres, firstly in Melbourne this week, today in Sydney, and I expect again in a few days from now in Perth, in what can only be described as a heavy-handed response to the situation.

I have no doubt that some of the occupiers are what might be called "professional protesters" given that their faces pop up again and again regardless of the cause - wild rivers, anti-forestry, coal-seal gas, you name it.  I also have no doubt that while permission may have been sought and granted for a "two-hour" protest with a clear intention of making the protest go way beyond that time frame, protest in an orderly (but not necessarily quiet), non-violent manner in a public place is not something that a civil society should allow the police to shut down just because a city by-law had been breached.

I don't believe the protesters were preventing citizens from going about their business.  I don't believe they could be regarded as having trespassed on private property.  They were simply using this centuries-old means of getting a point across and they weren't finished yet.

But armed police, some in riot gear, some on horses decided it was time for them to finish and so man-handled hundreds of people to get them out of there, some of whom may now face charges.

I actually don't really agree with the point these protesters are trying to make, but I feel very uncomfortable when the authorities of my society take to themselves the right to silence such criticism and protest in this way.

What do you think?