Citizenry use of protests to vent their discontent with the state often highlights a contentious rights boundary between the state and its citizens. The right to protest is considered as being one of the fundamental democratic rights afforded to citizens in any modern democratic state. However, in recent times there have been burgeoning array of protests that have prompted varying responses from the state. For example, the protestors at the Capitol Building in the US, the protests by Insulate Britain, BLM and violence against women as well as the protests on abortion rights in the US and protests on access to abortion services in the UK, all raise significant issues on the relationship between the state and its citizens.

The primary aim of this paper is to explore the nature of the relationship between citizen and state in the midst of a period of crisis. The argument explored in this paper is that times of crisis create opportunities for governments to harness these circumstances to achieve their political agenda. Often this agenda is related to limiting rights in favour of heightened executive power commonly resulting in a dilution of citizen rights. This sometimes has a significant impact on minorities in a way that can create and foster inequality in society. This argument is demonstrated by considering a range of examples involving emergencies and crisis as the impetus for significant constitutional change.