<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/1eb48c8f22581fcf</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/civil-disobedience-and-judicial-theories-of-political-change/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Civil Disobedience and Judicial Theories of Political Change - Kvelde v New South Wales</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Hicks, Liz</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2024-02-01</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Australien</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Civil Disobedience</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Implied freedom</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Australien</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>This post considers the latest episode of Australia’s engagement with civil disobedience under its constitutionally ‘implied freedom of political communication’ — Kvelde v New South Wales (‘Kvelde’). In Kvelde a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court followed the tendency of some High Court judges of reducing the democratic value of civil disobedience to binary terms: if a form of political speech is already illegal, the Court will not engage with further legislative acts seeking to increase penalties for it. I describe this as the ‘binary approach.’ I argue that the binary approach reflects a particular judicial theory of political change not necessarily prescribed by the freedom, that is also out of step with historical Australian political practices.</dc:description>
</dc>
