As the August 31 March for Australia approaches, politicians and the media are already working to cast it in the worst possible light. Whether you choose to attend or not is entirely up to you, and we make no judgment either way. What is concerning, however, is the growing tendency to define entire rallies by the worst actions or individuals in attendance.

It’s a dangerous precedent. No protest, rally, march, group, or public activity should be judged by the worst individuals in attendance. If that becomes the standard, the democratic right to protest can be subverted with ease. 

All it would take is a handful of bad actors to show up, behave poorly, and suddenly the entire movement is discredited. By that logic, citizens could never protest anything again, because no one can control who might appear and attempt to hijack the event.

Instead, every movement must be defined by the core message and purpose that unites its participants—the reason people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs come together in the first place. It is inevitable that those with bad motives will try to attach themselves to any cause. They always do. But until now, we have never allowed them to define the whole.

When exceptions are used to define a movement, they are being weaponised to discredit, discourage, or even criminalise an otherwise lawful activity that is central to the democratic process. If the worst elements of a crowd are allowed to represent the whole, then no crowd can ever gather again—and democracy itself collapses.

To judge every movement by its worst participants is to hand opponents an easy weapon to discredit any cause they dislike. In fact, it could even incentivise unlawful disruptions! If we allow this tactic to stand, protest becomes impossible, public debate is silenced, and democracy itself withers. We must resist the temptation to reduce the many to the sins of the few, and instead defend the right of citizens to be defined by their own terms, along with the message that unites them.