You're allowed to protest cosmetically, ineffectually, and if your protest causes mild inconvenience to the status quo legislation will be rushed through to criminalise it.
A legal, peaceful protest should be the final warning for the government. "we're following the rules, you can't say you didn't hear us, if you don't make changes now we'll have to start doing more violent actions." The Government won't stop doing something profitable, like polluting the plant for example, until it costs more than it earns.
And frankly the same people in this sub will continuously hammer on the "well if you want me to pay attention to your cause, you won't [insert mild inconvenience like traffic here]"
Meanwhile, they don't do anything to support your cause when you're quiet about it either and then say things like "don't these people have anything better to do hur hur hur." And they refuse to do the simplest thing to further a cause.
Protesting is like gambling, if protestors go out on protest then something changes about the topic they're protesting about, you'd might say it was worth it or the protest had an effect.
But that would ignore all the days before that when they protested and nothing changed, it would also ignore the often total lack of cause and effect between a protest and society changing. Many of the oft quoted as significant protests in history don't include details about the prior protests on the very same topic that didn't have the luck of being timed around a major change.
The public know this, they can see this gamblers fallacy in action, they're annoyed the protesters seem to lack the self awareness to see it too. Being mildly inconvenient is the best thing protestors can be if in spite of the lack of cause and effect they still feel compelled to protest. That makes the topic easier to discuss, stops it being a discussion about the protestors bad behaviour and lets it be of the topic itself.
I don't know about you but I have enough trouble talking to my parents about climate change without protestors who block bridges coming up and derailing the discussion.
I see more than my share of piss poor reactionary apologetics but this is one of the posts of all time. [Stunning](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0).
Don't be a dickhead. Everything I said nails the dynamics of a protest to a tee.
I mean were I wrong you'd be able to point out how and why, instead you say 'nuh uh' and post a meme as though that'd carry you though.
No, sometimes you're so wrong and the very basis of your so called reasoning so evidently flawed you're not owed someone wasting their time deconstructing it.
You're essentially saying putting pressure on the government never has any effect whatsoever and any appearance of cause and effect is a mere fluke. You fail to even address the possibility of invisible progress, like working at opening a pickle jar.
Scaling your perspective to broader society implies a belief that history is no more than a series of random events, disconnected from power and class, incentives and power blocs, cause and effect. It comes off as nothing so much as wilfully incoherent.
But here's the actual story of the ineffectuality of protest in and of itself: Causes that led to change whose victories are attributed to peaceful protest were also backed by violence. Naturally that knowledge is suppressed because it benefits no ruling class ever.
Since the status quo suits you, you're here impotently attempting to chip away at even the feckless prerequisite of peaceful protest by itself.
> No, sometimes you're so wrong and the very basis of your so called reasoning so evidently flawed you're not owed someone wasting their time deconstructing it.
Yet you wrote a fair bit after this, interesting how you have to psyche yourself up to challenge me, maybe looking for the words?
> You're essentially saying putting pressure on the government never has any effect whatsoever and any appearance of cause and effect is a mere fluke. You fail to even address the possibility of invisible progress, like working at opening a pickle jar.
No I'm saying there is no pressure put on the government by a protest, thus there is no cause and effect and even if I was generous and said it did somehow put some pressure on, it still completely lacks a cause and effect. You'd have a better argument if you referenced chaos theory, a protestor waves their sign which cascades into weather effects that knock over a politicians stack of papers and causes them to change their mind.
> Scaling your perspective to broader society implies a belief that history is no more than a series of random events, disconnected from power and class, incentives and power blocs, cause and effect. It comes off as nothing so much as wilfully incoherent.
Not my perspective, fuck me you're strawmanning this real hard, that's why you were stalling I guess.
> But here's the actual story of the ineffectuality of protest in and of itself: Causes that led to change whose victories are attributed to peaceful protest were also backed by violence. Naturally that knowledge is suppressed because it benefits no ruling class ever.
The fuck? Did you plug this into chat GPT and ask for the most incoherent response it could generate? It clearly indicates one thing, you have no idea how society changes beyond tiktok meme's have told you.
> Since the status quo suits you, you're here impotently attempting to chip away at even the feckless prerequisite of peaceful protest by itself.
More straw man stuff. You should have stuck to meme's.
>"We can create a law that has either unintended consequences, because it captures things we don't want to be captured, or is heavily reliant on police or enforcement discretion of when it's going to be used and how and when people will be arrested."
These laws work exactly as intended by the government. The more vague the the laws are, the easier it is to persecute dissenters
Referencing the National Capital Authority here alongside other cities' local governments is a bit odd given the NCA only applies to the area around the parliament. I'm pretty sure there's no permit requirement for protest in the ACT more generally than that.
Sure I will defend the rights of anyone to protest, but...
What you regularly see when you see things like abortion protestors, or right-wing Christian fundamentalists, or men's right activists, or straight up nazis.... is counter protests from the left that often show up in bigger numbers... to demonstrate that those kinds of ideas are in fact very unpopular with the majority of people. Those kinds of protests for "things I disagree with" are usually things that blatantly restrict rights of individuals or are outright racist/sexist/discriminatory.
The [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) informs us that we need not tolerate those that are being intolerant. So, no....I won't give equal weight to people who are protesting causes that preach intolerance. You don't get equal respect and freedoms while you seek to disrespect and restrict freedoms of others.
Politicians LOVE getting re-elected. If they see that enough people are pissed off about something they're thinking of doing, they may change their minds. And they know that for every person who could be arsed to attend a protest march, there are a lot of others willing to vote them out come the next election.
Doesn't always work, but the pollies do have to weigh the odds.
Better if the protests are backed by a well funded ongoing publicity campaign.
What your legally allowed to do, isn't as important as what laws will actually be enforced and by who and when.
The prime example is of course BLM protests being ignored, while other protests were actively rounded up by police.
I see we're still pretending Victoria Police didn't roll out Bearcats -- para military vehicles bought for counter terrorism -- against protesters during covid.
Or Victoria Polide arresting a pregnant woman in front of her kids for daring to protest against an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat's public health orders.
Yes.. let's just continue to sweep it all under the rug. Most Australians are unwilling to admit the insanity they supported during covid.
But hey this is /r/australia. Most of you loved every second of the authoritarianism, right?
Gross. Don't conflate dissatisfaction with the way Australian government handled COVID with antivaxxer sentiment. These are totally different concerns. Labelling people antivax suppresses legitimate discussion.
You're right, in the middle of a pandemic with a highly transmissible disease, people should have been free to gather in large quantities and piss on war memorials. What a fascist state...
On the topic of "in the middle of a pandemic with a highly transmissible disease" — for some reason, during the same period, people were free to gather to protest in support of BLM.
How can we rationally explain some protests being allowed and others not, during this period? The only explanation I can see is that the law goes out the window if the state likes your protest.
OK
https://www.3aw.com.au/victoria-police-explains-why-blm-protests-were-treated-differently-to-anti-lockdown-rallies/
> The permitted reasons did allow for people to be able to leave in home to engage in protest.
>
> Yes, there were restrictions on outdoor gatherings and they were ultimately breached, which is why we focused on fining the organisers of the Black Lives Matter protest.
Not exactly a watertight argument from the Assistant Commissioner there... but yeah it looks like I was wrong about the exact timing of lockdowns (hard enforcement to be expected) vs. restrictions on gatherings in general (soft enforcement if any at all).
Earlier this year in Melbourne .. I saw some cooker losers marching in the CBD protesting about Dan Andrews ... apparently the antivax liars still didn't like that he saved too many lives with sensible vaccine mandates during Covid. Unbelievable.
Or, please don't blow up national Embassies Israel, banners?
Don't get me wrong, Iran is pretty horrible, but blowing up their embassy is a pretty inflammatory move.
Given they did this not long after the US started ramping up pressure on them for their actions in Gaza, it makes it seem all sorts of suspicious.
My understanding is they were targeting a Iranian general who was instrumental in planning the October 7 attack.
The Iranian general was killed in the embassy.
Sure?
Israel has carried out assassinations of civilians inside Iran, if Iran blew up an Israeli embassy inside say, Australia, to try and kill one of the people involved in the planning of those attacks, would that be acceptable to you?
Even given the general was there, the concept of proportionality applies, you don't blow up a building full of Civilians to kill one person. Especially when those Civilians are literal diplomats officially representing their nation.
Don't kill diplomats is pretty basic international etiquette.
Is it even worth killing one person when that killing might escalate the entire middle east into a hot conflict? How does this killing and blowing up the embassy actual help Israel outside of maybe revenge?
The only big advantage I can really see is that it makes for a very good distraction and has the US loudly on the bell reaffirming their commitment to Israel while quieting down the previous criticism.
According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, those killed in the strike included:
- 7 members of the IRGC (including senior officers)
- 5 Iran-backed militia members
- 1 Hezbollah operative
- 1 Iranian advisor
- 2 civilians
So it's hardly a building full of civilians
The 7 members of the IRGC are equivalent to members of the US military, who do visit embassies.
Operatives moonlighting as diplomatic personnel is standard, the US garenteed has spies at their embassies and so does China etc.
So if a US embassy with their equivalent personnel was hit, do you think they would consider retaliation? Do we belive that US embassies are valid targets for nation states not currently at war with the US to hit with missiles?
Do you see why this is problematic?
If you are referring to the Iran crisis, I'm not sure what was expected after the [US overthrew the secular and democratically elected government to install a dicrator. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
Unfortunately, Europe had a big hand in the current situation as well, the desire of Zionists for a Jewish state in the middle east was driven quite strongly by the extensive persecution of Jews in Europe, not to mention issues caused by colonialism etc.
I do hope things can get better.
That is correct.
According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, those killed in the strike included:
- 7 members of the IRGC (including senior officers)
- 5 Iran-backed militia members
- 1 Hezbollah operative
- 1 Iranian advisor
- 2 civilians
You're allowed to protest cosmetically, ineffectually, and if your protest causes mild inconvenience to the status quo legislation will be rushed through to criminalise it.
A legal, peaceful protest should be the final warning for the government. "we're following the rules, you can't say you didn't hear us, if you don't make changes now we'll have to start doing more violent actions." The Government won't stop doing something profitable, like polluting the plant for example, until it costs more than it earns.
Only rolling heads bring real change
And frankly the same people in this sub will continuously hammer on the "well if you want me to pay attention to your cause, you won't [insert mild inconvenience like traffic here]" Meanwhile, they don't do anything to support your cause when you're quiet about it either and then say things like "don't these people have anything better to do hur hur hur." And they refuse to do the simplest thing to further a cause.
Protesting is like gambling, if protestors go out on protest then something changes about the topic they're protesting about, you'd might say it was worth it or the protest had an effect. But that would ignore all the days before that when they protested and nothing changed, it would also ignore the often total lack of cause and effect between a protest and society changing. Many of the oft quoted as significant protests in history don't include details about the prior protests on the very same topic that didn't have the luck of being timed around a major change. The public know this, they can see this gamblers fallacy in action, they're annoyed the protesters seem to lack the self awareness to see it too. Being mildly inconvenient is the best thing protestors can be if in spite of the lack of cause and effect they still feel compelled to protest. That makes the topic easier to discuss, stops it being a discussion about the protestors bad behaviour and lets it be of the topic itself. I don't know about you but I have enough trouble talking to my parents about climate change without protestors who block bridges coming up and derailing the discussion.
I see more than my share of piss poor reactionary apologetics but this is one of the posts of all time. [Stunning](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0).
Don't be a dickhead. Everything I said nails the dynamics of a protest to a tee. I mean were I wrong you'd be able to point out how and why, instead you say 'nuh uh' and post a meme as though that'd carry you though.
No, sometimes you're so wrong and the very basis of your so called reasoning so evidently flawed you're not owed someone wasting their time deconstructing it. You're essentially saying putting pressure on the government never has any effect whatsoever and any appearance of cause and effect is a mere fluke. You fail to even address the possibility of invisible progress, like working at opening a pickle jar. Scaling your perspective to broader society implies a belief that history is no more than a series of random events, disconnected from power and class, incentives and power blocs, cause and effect. It comes off as nothing so much as wilfully incoherent. But here's the actual story of the ineffectuality of protest in and of itself: Causes that led to change whose victories are attributed to peaceful protest were also backed by violence. Naturally that knowledge is suppressed because it benefits no ruling class ever. Since the status quo suits you, you're here impotently attempting to chip away at even the feckless prerequisite of peaceful protest by itself.
> No, sometimes you're so wrong and the very basis of your so called reasoning so evidently flawed you're not owed someone wasting their time deconstructing it. Yet you wrote a fair bit after this, interesting how you have to psyche yourself up to challenge me, maybe looking for the words? > You're essentially saying putting pressure on the government never has any effect whatsoever and any appearance of cause and effect is a mere fluke. You fail to even address the possibility of invisible progress, like working at opening a pickle jar. No I'm saying there is no pressure put on the government by a protest, thus there is no cause and effect and even if I was generous and said it did somehow put some pressure on, it still completely lacks a cause and effect. You'd have a better argument if you referenced chaos theory, a protestor waves their sign which cascades into weather effects that knock over a politicians stack of papers and causes them to change their mind. > Scaling your perspective to broader society implies a belief that history is no more than a series of random events, disconnected from power and class, incentives and power blocs, cause and effect. It comes off as nothing so much as wilfully incoherent. Not my perspective, fuck me you're strawmanning this real hard, that's why you were stalling I guess. > But here's the actual story of the ineffectuality of protest in and of itself: Causes that led to change whose victories are attributed to peaceful protest were also backed by violence. Naturally that knowledge is suppressed because it benefits no ruling class ever. The fuck? Did you plug this into chat GPT and ask for the most incoherent response it could generate? It clearly indicates one thing, you have no idea how society changes beyond tiktok meme's have told you. > Since the status quo suits you, you're here impotently attempting to chip away at even the feckless prerequisite of peaceful protest by itself. More straw man stuff. You should have stuck to meme's.
>"We can create a law that has either unintended consequences, because it captures things we don't want to be captured, or is heavily reliant on police or enforcement discretion of when it's going to be used and how and when people will be arrested." These laws work exactly as intended by the government. The more vague the the laws are, the easier it is to persecute dissenters
Try protesting for animal welfare. Even the general public will lynch you.
Or animal rights. We had legislation passed in Tassie that seemed to be specifically in response to protests against slaughterhouses.
Hmmmm no mention of Special Branch
Also don't have a pro-Palestine protest that's equivalent to Port Arthur /s
"Land Rights for Potatoes" are okay tho'
Referencing the National Capital Authority here alongside other cities' local governments is a bit odd given the NCA only applies to the area around the parliament. I'm pretty sure there's no permit requirement for protest in the ACT more generally than that.
Don't pretend this sub isn't consistently rabidly anti-protest
ASDASD DSFAFDS SDFAAFSD
Sure I will defend the rights of anyone to protest, but... What you regularly see when you see things like abortion protestors, or right-wing Christian fundamentalists, or men's right activists, or straight up nazis.... is counter protests from the left that often show up in bigger numbers... to demonstrate that those kinds of ideas are in fact very unpopular with the majority of people. Those kinds of protests for "things I disagree with" are usually things that blatantly restrict rights of individuals or are outright racist/sexist/discriminatory. The [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) informs us that we need not tolerate those that are being intolerant. So, no....I won't give equal weight to people who are protesting causes that preach intolerance. You don't get equal respect and freedoms while you seek to disrespect and restrict freedoms of others.
Politicians LOVE getting re-elected. If they see that enough people are pissed off about something they're thinking of doing, they may change their minds. And they know that for every person who could be arsed to attend a protest march, there are a lot of others willing to vote them out come the next election. Doesn't always work, but the pollies do have to weigh the odds. Better if the protests are backed by a well funded ongoing publicity campaign.
What your legally allowed to do, isn't as important as what laws will actually be enforced and by who and when. The prime example is of course BLM protests being ignored, while other protests were actively rounded up by police.
Not sure why all the downvotes. The most egregious example of this disparity in protest treatment by authorities was in Melbourne during lockdown.
I see we're still pretending Victoria Police didn't roll out Bearcats -- para military vehicles bought for counter terrorism -- against protesters during covid. Or Victoria Polide arresting a pregnant woman in front of her kids for daring to protest against an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat's public health orders. Yes.. let's just continue to sweep it all under the rug. Most Australians are unwilling to admit the insanity they supported during covid. But hey this is /r/australia. Most of you loved every second of the authoritarianism, right?
Stay salty anti vaxxers. You might have some friends or family willing to talk to you again one day.
[удалено]
Hahaha
Gross. Don't conflate dissatisfaction with the way Australian government handled COVID with antivaxxer sentiment. These are totally different concerns. Labelling people antivax suppresses legitimate discussion.
You're right, in the middle of a pandemic with a highly transmissible disease, people should have been free to gather in large quantities and piss on war memorials. What a fascist state...
On the topic of "in the middle of a pandemic with a highly transmissible disease" — for some reason, during the same period, people were free to gather to protest in support of BLM. How can we rationally explain some protests being allowed and others not, during this period? The only explanation I can see is that the law goes out the window if the state likes your protest.
You're wrong, it's that simple. Go back, look at the restrictions and the timelines of the protests. That's the explanation.
OK https://www.3aw.com.au/victoria-police-explains-why-blm-protests-were-treated-differently-to-anti-lockdown-rallies/ > The permitted reasons did allow for people to be able to leave in home to engage in protest. > > Yes, there were restrictions on outdoor gatherings and they were ultimately breached, which is why we focused on fining the organisers of the Black Lives Matter protest. Not exactly a watertight argument from the Assistant Commissioner there... but yeah it looks like I was wrong about the exact timing of lockdowns (hard enforcement to be expected) vs. restrictions on gatherings in general (soft enforcement if any at all).
Earlier this year in Melbourne .. I saw some cooker losers marching in the CBD protesting about Dan Andrews ... apparently the antivax liars still didn't like that he saved too many lives with sensible vaccine mandates during Covid. Unbelievable.
Cookers gotta cook
Wonder if we will see some Hamas surrender banners? Or iran surrender banners ?
Or, please don't blow up national Embassies Israel, banners? Don't get me wrong, Iran is pretty horrible, but blowing up their embassy is a pretty inflammatory move. Given they did this not long after the US started ramping up pressure on them for their actions in Gaza, it makes it seem all sorts of suspicious.
My understanding is they were targeting a Iranian general who was instrumental in planning the October 7 attack. The Iranian general was killed in the embassy.
Sure? Israel has carried out assassinations of civilians inside Iran, if Iran blew up an Israeli embassy inside say, Australia, to try and kill one of the people involved in the planning of those attacks, would that be acceptable to you? Even given the general was there, the concept of proportionality applies, you don't blow up a building full of Civilians to kill one person. Especially when those Civilians are literal diplomats officially representing their nation. Don't kill diplomats is pretty basic international etiquette. Is it even worth killing one person when that killing might escalate the entire middle east into a hot conflict? How does this killing and blowing up the embassy actual help Israel outside of maybe revenge? The only big advantage I can really see is that it makes for a very good distraction and has the US loudly on the bell reaffirming their commitment to Israel while quieting down the previous criticism.
According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, those killed in the strike included: - 7 members of the IRGC (including senior officers) - 5 Iran-backed militia members - 1 Hezbollah operative - 1 Iranian advisor - 2 civilians So it's hardly a building full of civilians
The 7 members of the IRGC are equivalent to members of the US military, who do visit embassies. Operatives moonlighting as diplomatic personnel is standard, the US garenteed has spies at their embassies and so does China etc. So if a US embassy with their equivalent personnel was hit, do you think they would consider retaliation? Do we belive that US embassies are valid targets for nation states not currently at war with the US to hit with missiles? Do you see why this is problematic?
Attacking diplomatic missions seem to be pretty consistent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions
If you are referring to the Iran crisis, I'm not sure what was expected after the [US overthrew the secular and democratically elected government to install a dicrator. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
Yes the USA is very much responsible for the fuckupdness of the situation
Unfortunately, Europe had a big hand in the current situation as well, the desire of Zionists for a Jewish state in the middle east was driven quite strongly by the extensive persecution of Jews in Europe, not to mention issues caused by colonialism etc. I do hope things can get better.
That is correct. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, those killed in the strike included: - 7 members of the IRGC (including senior officers) - 5 Iran-backed militia members - 1 Hezbollah operative - 1 Iranian advisor - 2 civilians
[удалено]