Bold claim: the growing deployment of pepper spray and other police weapons at protests is sparking alarm among rights groups and raising questions about safety, proportion, and accountability. But here’s where it gets controversial... as crowds gather for demonstrations, authorities increasingly rely on what are marketed as “less lethal” tools, yet the effects can be severe and unpredictable. This piece preserves the core facts, while offering clearer explanations and practical examples to help readers understand what this shift means for civil liberties and public safety.
In recent incidents, photographer Xavier Diekman was sprayed at a protest with a police officer standing less than a metre away. He described the experience as coming from very close, with immediate burning and pain that felt like a sharp jet of liquid hitting the eye. The irritant made it hard to breathe, causing coughing and blurred vision for about 45 minutes. These details were reported in media coverage of a Defence Weapons Expo protest at Darling Harbour in November, and similar sensations were described during a Sydney rally against the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog a week earlier.
Rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Australian Democracy Network have voiced concerns about the rising use of pepper spray and other crowd-control devices, including baton rounds, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades. NSW Police’s Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna defended the Sydney Town Hall protest actions as justified, even as questions about potential excessive force have prompted renewed calls for weapon reviews and more de-escalation-focused tactics.
What counts as a spike
Pepper spray, or capsicum spray (OC spray), is a handheld irritant that comes in sprays or aerosols and is deployed as a direct stream, mist, or fog. It contains high concentrations of capsaicin, the component that makes chili peppers hot, which irritates the eyes and skin and induces burning sensations. Typically, symptoms last from 45 minutes to two hours, though some individuals may experience more serious effects.
Medical professionals have warned of longer-term risks, including potential lasting disability in rare cases. A Physicians for Human Rights report highlights these concerns, underscoring that chemical irritants can have consequences beyond transient discomfort. Official guidelines describe OC spray as a self-defence tool used to restrain individuals or limit actions when violence or confrontation is likely, and as a less-than-lethal option intended to protect life when necessary.
Experts emphasize that pepper spray should be reserved for extreme circumstances, particularly when lives are at risk. Emma Ryan, a criminologist at Deakin University, notes that riot definitions can be ambiguous, but if lives are genuinely threatened, police intervention may be warranted; otherwise, the justification becomes harder to defend.
A broader perspective on protests
A recent ADN and Grata Fund report examining protest policing across Australia from 2019 to 2024 found a rise in pepper spray usage, with 11 protests in 2023–24 compared with seven in the prior five years. The report also documented several incidents of direct face-application of pepper spray, which guidelines discourage. It highlighted concerns about injuries affecting a wide range of participants, including younger people and the elderly.
Advocates for protest rights point out that the impact of pepper spray extends beyond the individual sprayed. Campaigners like Anastasia Radievska have drawn attention to injuries among diverse community members, including children, wheelchair users, and seniors, arguing that indiscriminate crowd-control methods amplify panic and distrust.
Personal accounts underscore the human cost. A Sydney mother described her 10-year-old daughter being pepper-sprayed while they attempted to leave a protest. The experience included coughing, shortness of breath, and exposure to others suffering similar symptoms, prompting calls for more protective measures and careful crowd-management practices.
Human Rights Watch has urged investigations into alleged abuses and excessive force at protests, noting the experiences of legal observers who were hit by pepper spray despite wearing visible identifiers. In response, NSW Premier Chris Minns defended police actions, while officials pointed to disruptive crowds and reported threats to officers as justification for decisive measures.
The palette of crowd-control tools includes so-called sonic devices. The Australian Democracy Network has renewed its call for reviews or bans of the most dangerous instruments used at protests, citing injuries from foam bullets and pepper spray and arguing that tactics used by police can be escalatory and provoke crowd crashes. Critics warn that the mere presence of loud, alarming devices can create fear and hamper peaceful expression.
Ongoing investigations
Australia’s Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has signalled it will examine clashes between police and protesters at Sydney Town Hall, including potential misconduct by officers deployed at the protest. In parallel, discussions about weapon reviews and safety measures continue, with government spokespeople indicating cooperation with inquiries and a preference for independent investigations to determine appropriate next steps.
Conclusion and invitation for dialogue
As debates about proportionate force, de-escalation, and rights-based policing intensify, readers are encouraged to weigh competing perspectives. Do these measures prevent danger or escalate tension and harm? Are there viable alternatives that protect both public safety and the right to protest? Share your views in the comments.
