The Dangers of the Mob

“The Government got that wrong. They have double standards.”

It has been a common refrain around the country in the past few weeks when discussing the protests around the Black Lives Matter movement.

Many have asked why we haven’t been able to gather for weddings and funerals in large groups during the Coronavirus pandemic, but thousands of people have been given approval to meet together and protest. How is that fair? What is the government thinking?

Maybe the government was confident that the protesters would be outdoors and could maintain social distancing, or perhaps it had nothing to do with any political alignment or any opinion about how contagious or controlled the virus was, but was based on the power of the mob. Of course, not all protests turn into riots, in fact very few do – but the risk that something will escalate is real.

Here are three insights into mob mentality:

Mob Mentality is Dangerous. Something significant happens when large groups of people get together, especially when they are all in agreeance on a hot-button political and emotional issue. In a group setting, individuals are emboldened and grow in courage to act in ways that they never would if they were alone.

History shows us this – whip a mob into a frenzy and it can turn into a riot. We saw this in Cronulla in 2005, but there have been many others including in Kalgoorlie in 1934. We’ve seen it in America numerous times also, in LA in 1992, Baltimore in 2015 and, of course, LA in 2020 (among many others). Jesus was crucified by the mob, without evidence and without the explicit approval from the ruler of the day.

Mob Mentality is Powerful. Governments across Australia did not deny people the ability to come together and protest in the midst of a pandemic, basically because they had no power to do so. Some groups are just too large to stop.

For example, WA has almost 7,000 police officers, including auxiliary staff. All you need is for 8,000 people to turn up somewhere and authorities have little hope to quell anything that gets instigated. Trying to keep a large group from rising up and overpowering you in a violent incident is not as far fetched as we may think.

Fredrick Douglas said “the oppressors only have as much power as the oppressed give them.” Which means that the mob can be outrageously powerful, for a while.

Mob Mentality is Short-lived. It can escalate quickly but then, just as quickly it can dissipate. Sometimes within seconds, sometimes within hours, other times it can last for days and weeks – turning into an ‘occupy’ type situation. But the mob will always run out of steam and begin to disintegrate, but only after the damage has been done to the people and the places around it. The longer it lasts the more damage is done, and when it is over the community is left to pick up the pieces and get back to real life.

Politicians fear nothing more than an angry mob, because whilst it exists, they are powerless against it.

I Know My Rights

Written by Kelsie De Haan, Opportunity International Australia Political Intern

Everyone should have access to the most basic of rights. That much we can all agree upon and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights backs me up on that on. It outlines what people are entitled to simply by being born human. It also outlines the responsibility the state has to uphold the rights of their citizens and provides a guideline to moral and ethical behaviour.

In 2005, a report was released outlining the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) which demonstrates how rights and responsibility play out at a global level. One of the key components of this is the state’s right to sovereignty which is forfeited if they do not uphold their responsibilities to their citizens. For example, to protect them from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It doesn’t stop there. Those who uphold the first responsibility are then given the added responsibility to help other states uphold it. Again, if they fail to prevent these atrocities or even perpetuate them, the international community assumes the responsibility to protect through intervention.

The right to sovereignty carries enormous responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of the citizens and we rightly expect this from our leaders. We readily criticise leaders who perpetrate human rights abuses and citizens pressure their own governments to take up the responsibility to intervene. For states to have the right to self-determination and self-government, first they must demonstrate their fulfilment of responsibility to promoting peace, protecting citizens and caring for the environment.

Somehow, things seem a little different at an individual level. The concept of responsibility tied to rights is often overlooked. We tend to be so quick to declare our rights and then dismiss our responsibilities. We expect the right to welfare as a citizen but we don’t like the responsibility of paying taxes – some even avoid paying tax and therefore impede on another’s right to receive adequate welfare. We love that we have the right to free speech, but are quick to shoot down other opinions that are different from ours – even attempting to silence through intimidation and violence. We revel in the right we have to live in freedom and safety but bemoan a speeding fine we receive when we put the safety of others at risk.

When we claim our individual rights without considering our responsibilities to those around us, it becomes very dangerous. It can lead to a place where the responsibility to respect another’s rights and protect their freedoms is overshadowed by the idea of ‘my rights over your rights’. Or in other words, ‘me first, you are not as important’. When this rhetoric is used, conflicting rights become the norm and solutions become less clear. It’s complicated. We see this daily in Australia where an individual’s right to seek asylum is in direct conflict with a state’s right to sovereign borders, or the right to free speech versus the right to live free of fear and hate speech, and even the pro-choice versus pro-life debate as it reflects the conflicting rights of a mother and her unborn child.

How do we justify privileging one person’s rights over another? It sounds awful when it gets stated like that, but we do it every day. I’m sure we would like to think that the ‘good guy’ always wins, but unfortunately it is more often the person with the most power who has their rights recognised and prioritised. When the responsibility to consider the needs of others is removed from the equation, conflicting rights are resolved through oppression of the disadvantaged by those in power. History shows us that oppression of a minority and the suppression of their rights appears to be the default setting, changing only when someone in a position of power draws attention to the injustice and allows an oppressed voice to be heard.

If being powerful is the prerequisite to exercising rights, this leaves women and children in a very vulnerable position. Fortunately, there are organisations like Opportunity International Australia and others whose sole purpose is to uphold their rights and empower them to a life free from injustice and poverty.  Yet for many other minorities, oppression and silencing of rights is a reality they face every day as a result of our reluctance to accept responsibility – responsibility to care for others, to make sacrifices for those in need, to listen to others and to simply be a responsible global citizen.

So, know your rights. Ensure that you have access to them. Make a stand for them. But don’t stop there. Know the responsibilities that you have because of your rights. Ensure others have access to their rights (no matter who they are or if you agree with all of their opinions), and make a stand for them. Use your rights to uphold those of others, not to oppress them.