Introduction
Liberalism takes up many forms and this explains why more than one issue constitutes liberalism. John Stuart Mill seemed to direct his line of thought on liberty towards social liberty i.e. nature and limitations of authority can be lawfully implemented via the community or any other individual. Hence, his objective was simple and straightforward, to administer the public dealings with an individual in a compulsive manner and controlled situation. Whether this implied the use of physical force or the use of legal penalties or garnering public perspectives on the matter[1]. People may argue that the moral concept underlying Mill’s sentiments on liberty is a combination of conscientiousness rather than a form of utilitarianism. The impression that humans flourish only under personal independence and individuality are key points in his sentiments on liberty. If this formation is to materialize into something more than a cultural principle, then it requires the support of other people and also aligns itself to human nature and the defendable clarification of historical cases. Mills applied his ideas to the utilitarianism ethical system of the civilization and nation at large.
Body
This way, Mills tried to put forth a system that intermarried power and liberty. He emphasized the central role of independence, which he considered a pivotal aspect to attaining pleasures hence the inclusion of utilitarianism. More so, Mill confirmed that democratic concepts led to the majority winning even when they were wrong. Other fundamental proposes suggested by Mill are classical jurisdictional goals associated with governmental interventions and their association to the entire society.
Body
Against Mill’s background, crafted his decision in the commissioner of police v Bassi. As some people mounted up support against ‘black lives matter’ protests, the police had to follow the law after Fagan J’s Supreme Court decision. Consequently, these actions brought attention to the protesters as they could be held liable if they went against the Supreme Court decision. For instance, the protesters would be arrested and charged in a court of law for breaking the court order. Despite exercising their right, these court orders barred them from protesting and impeding the normal flow of community activities. Amid this confusion, some people launched an appeal against Fagan J's decision through the court of appeal as the decision infringed on the protester's rights to voice their complaints. Some felt that the protests were the legal gathering of people and that making them unlawful was unethical and an overstep on other people's rights hence the need for an appeal as it was wrong to deny other people's freedom to picket and voice their concern on an emerging issue which affected most people of the society. Besides, the law is governed through reason, denying people a right to protest has to come with a fair reasonable answer for the law to act accordingly and legally.
Body
To comprehend the underpinning factors of Fagan J's decision and how it intermarries with John's Stuart's principles one needs to study the provisions under the offenses Act. The Offences Act displays and contain issues relating to public assembly. Section 24 of this act claims that a permitted public assembly is supposed to hold according to section 23 of the same Act. Implying that an individual is innocent of any wrongdoing about taking part in an illegal gathering[2]. Additionally, in section 23 of the same Act, before a public gathering is made legal, a written notice should be issued before the public assembly can be allowed to gather. This is matches Waldron’s thoughts on principles of liberty which state that socialism and conservatism dictate social norms and regulations hence dictating wrong and right. The notice is to be given to the commissioner[3]. This procedure seems to be in line with Jeremy Waldron's sentiments on the foundations of liberalism. Waldron claims that people who claim to be liberal or socialist have no complete autonomy over their own lives. Thus, political concepts have formulated liberty around community regulations and norms[4]. This way, one associated freedom based on self-conscious societal regulations. This explains the reason why people have to first seek a permit before they are allowed to gather in a public place to protest or even picket.
Conclusion
In summary, Waldron's sentiments allow room for disagreement hence giving a chance for democratic procedures and institutions. Thus based on these facts, relying on time and place the notice is issued to the commissioner, sections 25 states that court can then permit or deny a public gathering. Through the democratic process, one has to right to either exercise his or her authority or be denied altogether. Later, this one of the best ways to gauge the freedom or the liberties of any community. The association of the democratic process with liberty sometimes brings about a genuine establishment of liberty and what one can or cannot do within the society. The nature of the public assembly also dictates how one can be prosecuted. This proves that social construct influences people's liberty. Most of the time, the majority of the people have a say on what should be legal and what should be illegal and this brings in the conceptualization of liberty based on John Stuart and Waldron. Subsequently, the society effects the self-protection aspect of liberty. Liberty is the foundation upon which political freedom and economies are built upon and this is the reason why one’s freedom cannot be allowed to disrupt the life of another person.
[1] Mill, John Stuart. JS Mill:'On Liberty'and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[2] Waldron, Jeremy. "Theoretical foundations of liberalism." The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-) 37, no. 147 (1987): 127-150.
[3] Summary Offences Act 1988
[4] Commissioner of police v Bassi 2020
