Role play

At a recent tutorial, we had quite a nice session of role playing.

The Issue: Imagine that the XXX Party has planned a march to take place at a pre-dominantly Jewish neighbourhood and has indicated its intention to wear Nazi uniforms and to carry banners with swastikas. How should the law decide between the wishes of the one group to be allowed to march as against the wishes of the other group to live peacefully, free from demonstrations which in their eyes are threathening, provocative and a vivid reminder of past horrors?

The Scene: A local council meeting.

(There were 3 groups of 3 students in 3 different roles. Group A had to pretend that they were the local residents trying to persuade the local council to give a complete ban to the march. Group B had to imagine themselves as the members of the XXX Party and to persuade the local council their RIGHT to march. Group C were playing the role of the local council and had to decide the merits of the case before them. I was in Group C.)
1- 1st Speaker
2- 2nd Speaker
3- 3rd Speaker

Group A1: The XXX Party members are inconsiderate. What they are doing is wrong. They cannot be allowed to come in our neighbourhood without considering our feelings. Have they considered what they are doing in a Jewish community? If they do, we can’t guarantee that they will be safe.

(Other Group A members interrupt with angry outbursts of their own, forgetting the purpose of this roleplay was to learn and not to end up killing each other)

Me: In my opinion, what is wrong or right is different according to perspective. I suggest that no moral consideration be considered upon YET at this juncture. Furthermore, I do not believe violence is the way forward in our objective today.

Group A2 & 3: They can do without coming into the community. We cannot understand why they have to purposely march through a largely Jewish quarter.

Me: But, have they not rights of their own?

Group A2 & 3: YES. But, can’t they do it at a different area? What they are doing is STUPID. It is sure to cause trouble and mayhem.

Me: So, what you are asking is a partial ban and NOT a complete ban? But, you just said you wanted a TOTAL ban.

A1: YES. But, if we can’t get a total ban then we want them not marching through our neighbourhood. We can’t guarantee them no trouble.

C1&2: (interjects) So, would it make a difference if they did not put on the uniform but still allowed to march?

A2: YES. But, a mere presence will still spark trouble.

B1: We have rights under Article 10 ( freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of peaceful assembly and association) of the ECHR to march through the neighbourhood. Effectively, they are denying us that right.

Me: But, are you willing to invoke that right in the face of hostility.

B1: YES.

B2: Our party is a party of repute. We are sure our members are not hooligans nor are they trouble makers. All we want to do is to march and to send out our message. It is a peaceful message and has no intention of offending anyone.

C1: Yes. But, they are already telling you that it is offensive to the local residents.

B2: Yes. But, again I reiterate our party has no intention of committing any act of violence in the community.

B3: Our party is NOT the Nazi party. I’m sure many of you have remembered the oppression suffered by the Jews during that period of time. What we are merely trying to point out is that we are attempting to highlight the rights of minority groups in the country. There is no point if we do not march at this area for the march would then lose its significance. No point marching at Chinatown is there? We also do not see a threat in wearing the uniform. Should we be dressed up in bear costumes instead to march? The message is still the same.

A2: (angrily) But, at a stream, the salmon will still be afraid even though it was a man dressed up in a bear.

LECTURER HALTS PROCEEDINGS TO GIVE TIME FOR JUDGMENT.

Unanimous judgment was given in favour of a partial ban.

C1: The council decides that the march has to take place at a different venue. If it is to take place at the said neighbourhood, the party is not granted the permission to march with the uniform or the Swastikas.

It is perhaps important to underline that though I too agreed with the idea that the march should be granted permission to proceed, although at a different area, I did not agree that it should be allowed to proceed at the said neighbourhood. I was thinking along the lines of the European idea of proportionality. Yes, the party had Article 10 & 11 rights, and it was probably proportionate to allow them to march, at least somewhere different. But, I had felt that to allow them to march along the neighbourhood, even without the uniform or Swastika would have been inappropriate and disproportionate as the local residents would have felt the anger by their mere presence. The consequences of the Danish cartoons were heavily in my consideration and I felt there was no point taking a very unjustified risk in allowing the march to take place at that neighbourhood. In short, I was willing to risk more of human rights in the purpose of defending what I thought was local security. But, I lost on the majority 2:1 and thus the judgment was delivered.

(It felt weird and uneasy for me to sit in a [mock] quasi-judicial capacity. I’m sure Weng/ Jamie would have happily traded seats with me and I would have been equally happy to do the same [both of them were in Group B]. It feels much more easier being on the lawyer side then being on the side delivering the judgment.)

IF YOU WERE PART OF THIS ROLE PLAY EXERCISE, HOW WOULD YOU HAVE COME TO YOUR OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS?
HUMAN RIGHTS OR MERE CIVIL LIBERTIES, HOW WILL YOU BALANCE THIS DELICATE ISSUE?

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A TOTAL REPRODUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. ANY ERRORS ARE NOT DONE IN PURPOSE AND THERE ARE BOUND TO BE OMMISSIONS, INTENTIONALY OR OTHERWISE.