WHEN DEFYING THE LAW IS COCKING A SNOOK AT DEMOCRACY

There's a Big Difference Between Moral Obligation and Interference.

It would be tempting to think of it as a kind of anarchism, or at least a
rejection of authority. But it is, rather, a new kind of intolerance and
authoritarianism. This is the tendency that has recently again manifested
itself for religious or morally concerned people to be prepared to openly
defy the law, as in the case of the
illegal shooting gallery now operating in the Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross.

Not only is this centre intended to facilitate breaches of the law, it is
being presented publicly as a challenge to the law and policy of a
democratically elected Parliament and Government. This is a much
greater step than criticism, since it in effect is intended to force the
Government either to change the law, allow it to be treated with contempt,
or arrest and prosecute those who are participating. That is, the organisers
hope to be martyrs, and have spoken grandly about Gandhi and civil disobedience.

In the past, the police have often unofficially tolerated shooting
galleries, knowing that sometimes it is better to allow the law to be
administered flexibly. But this is a long way from an open challenge to
properly constituted authority, and has all too often shaded over into
corruption.

There is little doubt that the law on drugs as it stands is not working to
reduce the use of hard drugs, and the denial of medical supervision or
simply clean premises with someone prepared to call for help in the case of
an overdose is contributing to the death rate.

However, we do not know what is the best solution to the problem of drugs.
The illegality of assistance to illegal drug use is intended to act as an
overall deterrent to drug use. The hysteria which surrounds the subject
makes the whole debate pretty inconclusive, and the policy of zero tolerance
seems to be more in the nature of an assertion of faith than a really
effective policy.

Even so, there is something to be said for total prohibition as a policy. We
do not expect murder ever to be tolerated, even though we know perfectly
well that murders will always happen. Nor is it conceivable that any group
which challenged the law in this respect would ever be tolerated, even if it
insisted that, say, human
sacrifice was required by its religion and consciences, and was purely for
the good of the individual concerned and the community. When it comes to
euthanasia and suicide, the issues become less clear, just as the illegal
act of the drug user is more defensible as an assertion of individual
conscience than the acts of those who insist on illegally assisting him for
his own good.

But while almost everyone would agree that murder can never be tolerated,
the use of drugs, whether addictive or not, is not necessarily a bad thing.
You would never accept murder in any circumstances, but drugs obviously have
good uses, such as morphine for pain control, and subjective benefits to the
individual who uses them for "recreational" purposes. The real problem for
drugs policy is to accept that individual drug use in itself is not immoral,
or at least not considered unacceptable by many in the community.

We know perfectly well that prohibition of alcohol or prostitution will
simply produce thriving underground industries, with accompanying crime and
police corruption, even if they do reduce the incidence of the offences.
Thus prohibition seems to have been effective in reducing alcohol
consumption in the United States, but only at a huge social cost.

It clearly would not have been appropriate for any religious or social
worker to have opened up a speak-easy under medical supervision in order to
reduce the social costs of prohibition.

Partly this is because there is no way such an establishment could change
the overall impact of the policy, and indeed could simply encourage the
existence of the illegal industry by making some aspects of it safer.

Partly, also, because the mechanics of the policy and the nature of the
problem were not fully understood. Interferers, however high-principled and
compassionate their motives, do not usually know what they are talking
about. Sometimes they are morally in the right, sometimes not.

When the government under which they work is not susceptible to influence or
not responsible to the people, there is a case for defying it by breaking
the law. This is not true of democratic government in Australia.

As with homosexuality and many other present or former "victimless" crimes,
the violation of the law by individuals as a form of defiance is in
principle quite acceptable, since there is an overwhelming argument that the
law has no business interfering in the individual conscience.

The same applies to churches and religion. While churches have every right
to lay down moral rules for their own adherents, they have no business
interfering with those who do not accept their authority. But the State
exists precisely because there has to be a final authority.

While that is a democratic state, with protection for some minority rights
(though reservation must be made, as most international human rights
instruments do, for the overriding importance of public order) the case for
defiance by a church or any other group claiming superior moral authority
simply does not exist. They have a right to persuade the electorate but not
defy the law. The individual has a right to defy, but at risk.

By acting as they are doing, the interferers of Kings Cross, or would-be
illegal immigration racketeers like the Mary MacKillop nuns, are asserting
their right to impose their wishes over public policy by undemocratic means.
Power to the people, indeed!