His vow would extend to all laws, including the public gathering bill now before the National Legislative Assembly. The public gathering bill must ensure freedom of expression, for, “the Constitution is a delusion and a snare if the weakest and humblest man in the land cannot be defended in his right to speak and his right to think as much as the strongest in the land” (Clarence Darrow). The protesters’ goal is to bring public opinion to bear on a target, using legal means to bring about change – and this the bill must permit. But the law must also defend the equal rights of the target of the protesters and other stakeholders, including innocents affected by a gathering, for example, students and workers or would-be patrons of the targeted institution.
Thus, when my friends and I in the US picketed against American segregation (which was then legal), we worked closely with the police to ensure that we stayed within the law, informing them well in advance (our right to protest non-violently was never an issue). We stayed strictly on public property, leaving 9 feet between pickets to allow would-be patrons of the target to enter and leave freely. We maintained strict silence, so as not to intimidate anybody; our message to the general public was conveyed solely by signs and media interviews. A single cop kept order from across the street. Schools and stores in the protest site remained open, and traffic flowed normally.
Public opinion was overwhelmingly on our side, as shown by our before-and-after customer counts. Also, we staged a reverse boycott, where we asked all supporters to patronise our target on a designated day – and the line stretched around the block, to the point where the restaurant couldn’t wash dishes for customers fast enough. We badly need a public gathering bill. But in deliberating it, the NLA must impartially address the concerns of all major stakeholders, including innocents near to the protest site, the protesters, and their target.
Burin Kantabutra