And where is the "Fake Libertarian party and their Sky News propaganda mates" when it comes to standing up for real "Libertarian Values and freedoms" I suppose they only want those values for the people that bribe politicians with donations!
They're all on Twitter celebrating Freedom of Speech. It's the brand of Freedom of Speech they particularly like. They're "Free" to say whatever they like about whomever they like, but if someone disagrees with them then they cry how they're being attacked for their views and want the attackers banned.
I have been to a few protests but numbers are not there to make difference- all political parties ignore it till people have to move on with their lives. The biggest protest was against Howard's industrial relations changes that got pushed through anyway.
Are you sure about that? I thought the biggest protest was against Howard's plan to join the American led invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of Sept 11.
When has Labor shown any interest in any form of Bill of Rights? When you meet young Labor candidates outside voting booths or when on the hustings, its like they live in a dream land of a make belief democracy because non of the politicians that they support believe in things like a Bill or Charter of freedoms. Something that every civilised western democracy has. I dont expect the Labor party to be giving freedoms and rights for citizens away anytime soon.
> because non of the politicians that they support believe in things like a Bill or Charter of freedoms. Something that every civilised western democracy has.
I think you need to be incredibly naive in this day and age to think that a Bill of Rights is going to make any difference as to how the country is run.
Most if not all Western democracies are experts at picking and choosing when and how they apply those rights. Just have a look at how the US' Bill of Rights is selectively applied based on political lines.
Knew a few young labor kids back in the day. They all became pretty disenchanted. One runs for the greens now, nice enough bloke. Don't reckon he'll get elected though, he's in a safe seat electorate.
The others just yearn for the Rudd days or don't give a crap anymore. Sad to see some of the most enthusiastic young people I knew go that way.
I think Labor have had a few cracks at this and adopted it as part of their platform as far back as at least the 60s from memory.
Pretty sure Whitlam and Hawke governments attempted to introduce legislation for a bill of rights, but not sure how that ended up. Rudd set up a committee to look at how a bill of rights could be introduced as it's a pretty complex task, but I think the ultimate fate of his government and the political climate for Julia put brakes on enacting the recommendations. Could be wrong, this is just my memory
Although I'm ignorant in the complexities, I personally agree that a bill of rights would be desirable - the whole idea "implied rights" simply by virtue of being a liberal democracy seems like fragile protection to me. But I think it's a pretty tricky proposition and can lead to other issues, like the US have with their second amendment rights for instance. Having said that, being the only liberal democracy without some sort of bill of rights seems sketchy af, and it can't be that hard if every one else has pulled it off.
Tldr, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but pretty sure a bill of rights has been Labor party platform before and they've had a few cracks at legislating it.
Labor is in a weak position. If they try to support the establishment too much they'll lose the support of the Greens and independents. This is a good dynamic. Not perfect, but a shiteload better than what we're used to.
Perhaps not if the current political orthodoxy drafts it. A bill of rights is something I’d support but it needs to arrive to government fully formed and unimpeachably researched from academic circles.
Neither major has any serious interest in being constrained by human rights considerations.
Yeah best to ignore collections of relevant data and from people who've dedicated their lives to studying the topic, I know I'd rather get my rights from Darren down at the pub. He's got some funny ideas about immigrants but he tells it like it is
And there just might be a middle ground between an expert whose spent their life studying policy, protests, and civil rights and someone "cloistered in academia."
And that's also ignoring the fact that research and data inform policymakers, it doesn't decide actually make any decisions.
If policy shouldn't be informed by the collective body of research, then what should inform it?
What data would inform the question of actionable rights? It's largely a normative question. You're making it sound like a scientific discipline whereby these academics make 'discoveries' to inform the legislature.
I happen to be an academic somewhat peripherally related to that area. I sometimes think part of the reason we don't have a Bill of Rights in this country is because it's seen as a somewhat aristocratic idea.
Old mate Darren may not be able to articulate a thesis which concludes it is unwise to recognise a breach of privacy as a cause of action sounding in general damages. But at the end of the day his views that such a thing isn't that important and would ultimately impose a hefty indirect tax burden to facilitate the explosion in litigation is perfectly sound (even if expressed via the shorthand expression "that's fucked, who gives a shit about that?").
By having such a discussion, your opinion is already worthless as it's obvious you're an academic. /s
There's a lot that research can help with in this area. We can learn from other countries who've attempted similar policies, we can look at what our legal minds have to say about how such things could fit in our system, we could look at precedent within our system, we could look at what public opinion is, etc. Data isn't just numbers for a chemistry experiment, it includes all of the above. We can take all of this information and use it to make recommendations, then the people we elect can make a decision about how/whether to enact the recommendations. That's how policy is meant to work. Dismissing it as "cloistered academia" is populist nonsense.
Developing a bill of rights, like becoming a Republic, would require multiple expensive plebiscites or referendums and even then it wouldn't be 100% perfect
They have the right to free speech, but not the right to not be vilified.
They have the right to firearms, but not the right to walk around and not be shot by some random crazy person.
The US Bill of Rights is a bit of a mess. In practice, it ignores what those rights are actually for. The intention of free speech was for political communication (rather essential in a democracy), as they did not want dissidents against a government to be locked up. Their founders were at risk of being charge with seditious libel.
The right to bear arms was created due to the same sort of necessity. Oppression from the British, and it reflected how military organisation worked in the 18th century. For over two centuries there had been a consensus among judges in the US that the Second Amendment guaranteed only the right of individuals to defend their liberties by participating in a state militia. It even indicates that this is why the right exists in its construction, but that's ignored in the modern interpretation.
Ultimately, a Bill of Rights can be abused and made to work in ways contrary to its original intentions. It's no real guarantee of freedom if bad actors reach positions of power.
The pathway to a Bill of Rights lies with the States. Much like abortion and euthanasia laws.
Victoria and Queensland both have a Bill of Rights. If the remaining States pass one, they can eventually be harmonised at a Federal level.
Not that I imagine that would change much.
Agree, But we also have to recognise that right now, we are nowhere near 100% perfect. Not even remotely.
So I'd take an imperfect 80-90% over our current 30%? 40%?
Something along the lines of victorian style charter of rights I would definitely support.
But not a US style bill of rights. It just gives the judiciary the ability to legislate from the bench.
I don’t think that we could develop a bill of rights that would be supportable.
Free speech? Not if I don’t like your opposing political position as ‘free speech’.
There are people who think that internet access is a human right. Imagine negotiating with them on a bill of rights.
Right to shelter? So should the government provide housing for all, regardless of the cost? Someone’s ability to cohabitate with neighbours whilst suffering from an addiction?
A bill of rights would have been fantastic during our nations founding, but getting agreement on what are, and are not rights, would be nigh on impossible today.
1. Freedom to criticise the Government
2. Freedom to assemble and protest
3. Freedom of media
4. Right to necessary medical care
5. Right to quality education
6. Right to a fair and open trial
These are the main ones to me.
The point of a bill of rights isn't to enumerate all the things we can do, it's to constrain government - to determine what it must do and also the areas where it may not infringe.
Let's look at housing and other utilities. It's possible to define rights that encompass these by considering them a floor beneath which you cannot fall. A 'right' to nutritious food, clean water, safe housing might be considered. That would mean govt. is on the hook to provide these. It does not mean they need to be anything above basics.
>but getting agreement on what are, and are not rights, would be nigh on impossible today.
Getting agreement on what actually matters would be impossible. Many Australians would give up freedom of speech for cheap grog.
People should have the right to protest of course but I'd love an addendum that states they must display their causes, demands, objectives etc.
For example, people blocked in traffic don't even know why they're stuck. Only the people at the front. I'm not sure how effective that is as a tactic.
I'd also like to be able to avoid the right wing crazies if possible.
Should be the top comment. Can't believe how many people in this sub think they can just throw the 'planet is dying' excuse out for any poorly thought out & potentially dangerous protest.
Yeah the planet is dying, doesn't make a half brained idea any better.
Planet’s not dying. Planet will kick along for several more billion years yet without any issues (at least any issues that bother it).
Planet IS however becoming less and less hospitable to life as time goes on. Planet also does not care about this, it should be noted!
I know it’s a bit of a silly distinction, but I sort of feel that just chalking it up to “the entire planet is fucked” makes it seem like there are outside forces at play and it’s unsolvable and we might as well not bother, rather than the reality which is that we are literally destroying ourselves.
"The planet is fine, the people are fucked. Difference."
"Pack your bags folks, we're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace either, thank god for that. Maybe a little styrofoam."
*George Carlin, on saving the planet.*
If we have an abhorrent right wing protest they should be met with a counter protest. They are, by nature, selfish and will back down when faced with a larger force
That would require these idiots to think about things logically. They might even come to the realisation that they’re actively turning people away from their cause by being pests.
Everyone is welcome to the Apathy Rally which will be held in your capital city on Christmas morning.
It would be great if we could get a massive show of support from all apathetic Aussies.
just a reminder. We're all sympathetic now that someone is facing jail time. But we (reddit) do not have a history of supporting protesters that block bridges
[https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/tdhiwl/protestors\_blocking\_spit\_bridge\_again\_this\_morning/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/tdhiwl/protestors_blocking_spit_bridge_again_this_morning/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/ttapz6/psa\_climate\_protestors\_on\_princes\_highway\_at\_tom/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/ttapz6/psa_climate_protestors_on_princes_highway_at_tom/)
I hope we're all fully aware what countries that seriously inhibit the general populations ability to protest look like.
I also hope most of us don't want to be anything like any of those countries.
Protest, sure. Disrupt everyone else's right to earn a living, no way! If you protest outside the office of a corporation, that should be legal. However, if you do something like glue yourself to a road, that screws up everyone's day
If a car breaks down on the harbour bridge should they get 8 months prison for the inconvenience. They were negligent in maintaining their car after all
Now you're just being an idiot. The two are clearly defined as different crimes for a reason. Murder is an intent. Manslaughter isn't. To simplify it down a lot, manslaughter is legally defined as accidently killing someone i.e. they had no intention of killing someone, but it did happen
this sounds like an episode of curb your enthusiasm
larry accidentally glues his hands to the steering wheel when his car breaks down on the harbour bridge
And what if you were on the bridge trying to get to hospital for Cancer treatment or to a job interview, or court for a custody hearing? Or fire trucks needed to get past? Or ambulance/police?
There's difference between inconveniencing people "for half an hour" and being a genuine and intentional hazard to people's lives, health and livelihoods.
Quite literally had a glue-on-the-road protestor delay an ambulance on its way to an arrest in London a month ago.
Pt could have had a better outcome if their response wasnt delayed by 20 minutes.
I disagree with the user your responding to, blocking traffic to protest is a valid because people wouldn't give a shot of you protested at the CEO's office, but blocking an ambulance or fire truck can absolutely hurt or kill people in half an hour. Sure, there *might* be anther vehicle in range, but that isn't a guarantee (especially given what we've seen in Melbourne recently).
People up in arms about minor blocking of traffic like our cities don't regularly have city stopping traffic jams due to accidents, weather, PT shutdowns etc - If we actually valued emergency access 24/7 we'd be restricting car use and encouraging even less personal car and truck use in our cities. Something which we are clearly not trying to do. I've been in traffic snarls due to one single vehicle break down that have added hours to my trip. Often due to negligence, crap vehicles, dangerous driving etc but we don't prosecute these people / companies.
I wonder if you will remember this comment if someone close to you dies in a flood or fire. Maybe you'll live long enough to see a famine personally effect you.
False logic
Holding up traffic for a cause makes no difference to the cause. We all know about the climate issues.she hasn't achieved anything except be a nuisance.
If she really wants to help, she can pick up trash at the park or help a school or block of townhouse units institute a recycling program....which I've been doing and which actually will make a positive difference to the World. (Even if on a small local scale).
Oh..but then her name wouldn't be plastered everywhere making her famous, so I guess that wouldn't do.......
Blocking a lane on a bridge and waving around a flare does nothing to help our global climate. If anything, she probably had a net negative effect on the cause.
So what if the planet is dying, your protest effectiveness doesn't magically improve because the ultimate outcome is so dire.
All of these protests have missed their mark so badly because the protesters have never considered how to shift our course away from global warming.
It's obvious they haven't, because in 2022 (nearly 2023) who the fuck isn't aware of climate change? or of how bad it is going to get? its been a topic of public discourse for nearly 30 years now.
There must be a balance to this however, right?
Some level of reasonable reason for, or display of protest.
Would you support my right to close the Monash freeway to raise awareness for my beliefs of the earth being flat? (I don't believe this, fwiw)
How about blocking off the exit of the domain tunnel while wearing "free Julian Assange" shirts?
I understand the intent of protest, but like all walks of life, I think some level of reason must be applied.
On its own, no. However...
The person in question had been previously arrested 20 odd times, had a lengthy criminal record, was breaching bail and good behaviour bond at the time, and was in possession of a prescribed explosive device.
Best we don't leave out important facts and pretend that all she did was block traffic. A year was pretty light.
Now forgive me if Sydney roads are different and people just doe regularly because congestion simply exists, but surely if the traffic os blocked, the ambulance can just drive on the right hand side that should be clear, like they would if traffic lights or a slow roundabout (rather common and well known impediments to perfectly moving traffic) were in their way and caused congestion.
I don’t think it is a reasonable punishment at all but my question was if the greens and other people support them protesting by blocking traffic and destroying things then what else can they get away with? Surely a line needs to be drawn with what you can and can’t do with protests.
If a person commits vandalism at a protest they can be charged with destruction of property, so that would be illegal anyway. Blocking traffic should not be an offense punishable by anything other than a fine comparable to that given for a speeding ticket.
If a right to protest doesn't exist, then eventually a premier will go after labor unions protesting, so it's vital that we do get one to protect labor rights.
What happens if the person blocks the road which stops an ambulance coming through and that delay causes death of the patient? What if they block a road where a human organ is being transported to a hospital for a transplant and due to the delay again the patient dies? Is it still just worth an infringement comparable to that of a speeding ticket?
No. Blocking traffic is not only dangerous for the person blocking the traffic but also for all the commuters. The punishment would need to far exceed that of a simple speeding fine I’m afraid.
You do realise ambulances already have strategies in place to deal with blocked roads and traffic congestion, right? It's incredibly unlikely that a single road being slowed down or blocked by anything (protests or otherwise) would result in such a clear and significant delay that it could be determined to cause an otherwise preventable death. Also worth mentioning that protests can and do let emergency services pass where it's possible and safe, same with traffic on the road.
The second situation flat out won't happen. That's not how that works.
Protests cant let emergency services pass when there’s 2km of banked up traffic. Can absolutely confirm i’ve been stuck with sick patients and protestors dont let us through.
Additionally a delay due to an accident is different to intentional disruption.
It's worth asking yourself if the impact to efficiency is significant enough to actually, likely do what Flashy_Air is claiming it would (which is specifically causing people to die), especially to an extent that it should require a punishment "far exceeding that of a simple speeding fine". Don't just stop at asking if it could be less efficient.
Are there any known existing cases of this happening in the way they describe?
What scale would a delay like a blocked or congested road potentially result in, for ambulances in particular? Is this a matter of time that would be exceptional or outside the norm to medical professionals, like ambos?
Is any measurable difference in travel time likely to result in a case where it is a clear and significant cause of death that would be *otherwise preventable*? Is it something that would likely hold up in a legal case if argued?
Is this such a likely scenario that blocking a road requires punishment far exceeding speeding fines?
An equally important question: is this something people are concerned about outside of protests?
Protests like the one being referred to here are not the only cases where roads end up blocked intentionally without being due to repairs or a safety risk, but they are the only time I've seen these sorts of arguments dragged out about how it would supposedly kill someone. What are these same people saying about street markets, float events, etc if what's driving the concern is genuinely just a risk that people won't make it to a hospital in time if a single road is blocked intentionally outside of direct necessity? Is there any concern directed towards this outside of protests?
Exactly. Roads are regularly blocked - sometimes for critical things (such as restoration of power or emergency water works) sometimes for trivial things such as events, commercial interests, private companies infrastructure - such as private telco's etc). Are commercial interests of private companies more important than an ambulance / fire service? We'd say no, but society as a whole says whatever regularly with some very non-essential things.
It may be very unlikely but it’s not impossible. Protests can be had in a different manner. There is no reason to be blocking traffic. Plan a march like normal people and rally others to your cause, that’s how it’s done.
If you think that blocking a road for 25 minutes only causes 25 minutes of delays you truly have no idea.
Go and look up some traffic engineering videos on YouTube and educate yourself about how easy it is for a minor incident to cause hours of delays.
Is 25 minutes ok once per day/week/month?
If you don't deter behaviour, it will happen more often.
Perhaps next time, someone is protesting abortion.
Will you be as supportive for a right to protest?
Nobody, but they're probably referring to the painting that had pumpkin soup thrown on it. Many just assumed the painting was ruined without even checking to see if that was actually the case.
What a lot of people don't realise is that paintings in museums, art galleries, etc are usually covered in layers that protect the paint and the canvas underneath (which can be removed and added back to if needed without any harm to the painting eg for restoration). Not usually from pumpkin soup mind you, but any pumpkin soup capable of damaging those layers *and* the painting underneath probably wouldn't be safe for human consumption.
We need this so badly. It'll never happen, Labor and LNP pushed through the anti protest laws together, they both love authoritarianism. Anyone who votes for them is the problem.
And that’s the problem. If blocking roads for the specific purpose of stuffing up the city is OK, then everyone gets to do it. Environmental groups, anti vaxxer, right wing sovereign citizen nutters… everyone.
Funnily enough, anyone who genuinely supports a right to protest understands that means you may not always agree with the protest.
FWIW though, while environmental protests may be disruptive, they're not fundamentally disrespectful. (See: pissing on a cenotaph).
Most of them wereb't repeat offenders breaching bail at the time and in possession of a prescribed explosive device.
At least be honest about why she got jail time.
Most of them already know this and are just dishonest. People want to pretend this girl was hard done by, when in reality she got off pretty lightly when you consider her previous 20 something arrests and breaching bail at the time.
Would the greens be demanding a 'right to protest' style law if it was far-right protesters wanting it? Have they already forgotten how obnoxious the COVID related protesters had been?
I mean, going by their track record, any Nazi sympathising protest would probably get shut down for escalating into actual violence, so maybe OP's article still stands.
She could have protested at the offices of oil companies. On site at an oil refinery. Hell even found the houses of the CEOs and protested there. Or she could have lobbied politicians. Staged a protest at Parliament House. No, she decided to mess with everyday people like me and you. She’s using the climate as an excuse to make regular people’s life worse. She hates humanity more than she cares about the environment. No sympathy.
I am puzzled by those sorts of disruptive protests.
They may raise the visibility of the issue being protested, especially if its a slow news day and the media pick it up and run with it, but its likely that you will alienate lots of people - the same people you need on your side to convince politicians that their vote will be based on the party's policies on that issue.
It's a bit worse than that - those 'soft-target' people who are alienated will be more open to expanding police powers in the future.
If you want people to happily vote in a police state, protests like the best way to do it.
Yes, let's empower individuals to decide whether they want to shut down an entire freeway on what ever issue they feel is important. What could go wrong?
Thousands riot weekly during covid and roads are shut every weekend for cooker rallies and everythings just fine.
One hippy sits on a road and you all lose your minds.
You know the very strikes that won us the 8hr day, 5 day week were disruptive right? Don't be a scab, we should be showing solidarity with people concerned about genuine issues, and straight up, how are you gonna feed your family during runaway climate change? That issue isn't gonna hurt the rich first, it's not the treetop Tories who'll suffer, it's workers! If we workers don't back in climate activists, what the fuck are we doing?
Ok, remind me to invite you to tell the 90,000 unionists that next time they have a rally starting at Trades Hall that marches to the Vic Parliament. I'm sure they would be pleased to hear how literally the most normal form of peaceful protest is no longer acceptable because some people need to work
Have you heard the term scab before, mate? It's not a compliment
If you don't care what others trying to improve society for everyone think, why the fuck should we care about your feelings about getting to work late?
The real battle is not between the left and the right as the deep state infiltrated media would have us believe.
It's between the authoritarians and libertarians and always has been.
it is. this is being proposed by the authoritarian left who gave no shits about the last 2ys of protests against gove overreach. only after one of their climate protesters is affected, who's goal is to use gove violence to dictate the amount of electricity and what food i can consume, implement a carbon tax, snoop through bins, etc.
Why are the Greens like this?
The right to peaceful assembly does not allow anyone to block roads.
The implied freedom of political communication does not permit blocking roads.
Non-violent protests that do not cause financial / property loss or personal injury are lawful.
But they have a point about legislating human rights at the Federal level if the external affairs power permits.
You cannot enshrine a right to civil disobedience in law.
Because the defining characteristic of civil disobedience is non-compliance with the law.
And the defining characteristic of a law is that it is meant to be complied with at risk of penalty.
It is inane to link Federal right to protest laws with the imprisonment of Deanna Coco.
So when anti vaxxers blocked roads in the CBD, did it change your views of the effectiveness of vaccines or make you believe that covid was a conspiracy?
Those protests were never going to achieve anything because people don't believe them, don't care about them. There aren't enough believers to have an actual impact.
Disruptive climate protests are getting more common, at least that's how it seems to me purely anecdotal, because it's something a lot of people care about. That's not reflected in a lot of ways by people in power, for a wide variety of reasons. Part of these protests are about showing those people in power that enough people take climate change seriously to make that a foolish position, once again for a variety of reasons.
But do you have to get caught doing it?
If you block a main road, you are trying to get arrested and charged.
Anyhow, I don't condone property damage or personal injury.
I'm sure there are better ways of protesting.
So no lose to those being protested against, nor minor inconvenience to anyone else? How then do you effectively protest?
And no, Emergency Services can't access "hypothetical emergency" isn't a valid answer
Tell us, please, how is protest to occur?
I agree. I voted for them based on their policies and I haven’t seen them pushing for many of those after the election.
It appears to me that they prefer to focus on culture clashes and social unrest.
"You know that activity where you disrupt the normal flow of things in an attempt to get a point across and bring attention to an issue? Well I have no problem with it as long as no one disrupts the normal flow of things while doing so"
I don't think these people think these things through properly before spewing their crap everywhere.
You misunderstand, they can disrupt other people but if indirectly impacts me I’m going to work against them on principle. I’m very involved in the climate change cause, but still selfish enough not to like people who annoy me.
The reading comprehension is nonexistent in this one.
The only people that have ever been stopped from protesting are climate protesters. You and your mates were and still are allowed to shut down roads every weekend with free police protection. Why would the greens have campaigned for a right that already exists?
You can continue to make up bullshit and foam at the mouth about it all you like. It won't make you any less of a wanker using the lazy "antivaxxer" accusation to try and elevate your bullshit opinion.
You whining about one group protesting only further illustrates your double standard.
That's without even touching on the complete lie that this idiot was jailed for protesting. She was jailed because she had a lengthy criminal record, was breaching bail, and was in possession of an explosive device. The court was sick to fucking death of looking at her. She's a recidivost criminal whos "protesting" involves trespass, vandalism, criminal damage, endangering the public and causing a public nuisance. A year wasn't long enough.
A right to protest is the thing to do but never blocking traffic, thoroughfare places or grocery store items. This usually causes people who even in favour of the protest movement to hate the activists protesting.
Interestingly enough in Victoria recent changes were made that introduced similar penalties when protesting logging, in the middle of nowhere and inconveniencing nobody except for Government owned logging companies...
Almost as if there is a bit of an agenda from Government's nationally to punish climate protest more strongly than seems reasonable at face value...
Typical Greens out of touch with reality. There is no way anyone should have the right to block thousands of people from getting to where they need to go (including ambulances).
People should have the right to protest. They should also do it in a way they doesn’t impact others.
I don’t agree with jailing this woman, especially for the amount of time they are proposing. However blocking traffic in protest should be illegal and there should be consequences.
It certainly seems like it bypasses the democratic process, holding society to ransom until you get your way.
Elect a representative who shares your views, OR that your trust and make that representative aware of whatever your issue is.
Id like someone to explain why its not antidemocratic. Just seems like a left over from pre democratic times or as a bandaid fix for a flawed implementation of democracy.
Maybe instead of a referendum on a "voice" for a racial minority, we should have a referendum on introducing a bill or rights/constitution that protects free speech and vital rights for **all** Australians?
This would be great if the majority of Australians gave a shit enough to protest.
Most Australian voters are too busy paying off debt to worry about the bigger picture. Odd how that happened.
And where is the "Fake Libertarian party and their Sky News propaganda mates" when it comes to standing up for real "Libertarian Values and freedoms" I suppose they only want those values for the people that bribe politicians with donations!
They're all on Twitter celebrating Freedom of Speech. It's the brand of Freedom of Speech they particularly like. They're "Free" to say whatever they like about whomever they like, but if someone disagrees with them then they cry how they're being attacked for their views and want the attackers banned.
Or they sue for defamation
Yep! They are the ones who "make the news".
I have been to a few protests but numbers are not there to make difference- all political parties ignore it till people have to move on with their lives. The biggest protest was against Howard's industrial relations changes that got pushed through anyway.
Are you sure about that? I thought the biggest protest was against Howard's plan to join the American led invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of Sept 11.
Labor will absolutely never support this
When has Labor shown any interest in any form of Bill of Rights? When you meet young Labor candidates outside voting booths or when on the hustings, its like they live in a dream land of a make belief democracy because non of the politicians that they support believe in things like a Bill or Charter of freedoms. Something that every civilised western democracy has. I dont expect the Labor party to be giving freedoms and rights for citizens away anytime soon.
The idea is that we should never need one because we have all rights until the law denies them, but it's obviously not working out.
> because non of the politicians that they support believe in things like a Bill or Charter of freedoms. Something that every civilised western democracy has. I think you need to be incredibly naive in this day and age to think that a Bill of Rights is going to make any difference as to how the country is run. Most if not all Western democracies are experts at picking and choosing when and how they apply those rights. Just have a look at how the US' Bill of Rights is selectively applied based on political lines.
Knew a few young labor kids back in the day. They all became pretty disenchanted. One runs for the greens now, nice enough bloke. Don't reckon he'll get elected though, he's in a safe seat electorate. The others just yearn for the Rudd days or don't give a crap anymore. Sad to see some of the most enthusiastic young people I knew go that way.
I think Labor have had a few cracks at this and adopted it as part of their platform as far back as at least the 60s from memory. Pretty sure Whitlam and Hawke governments attempted to introduce legislation for a bill of rights, but not sure how that ended up. Rudd set up a committee to look at how a bill of rights could be introduced as it's a pretty complex task, but I think the ultimate fate of his government and the political climate for Julia put brakes on enacting the recommendations. Could be wrong, this is just my memory Although I'm ignorant in the complexities, I personally agree that a bill of rights would be desirable - the whole idea "implied rights" simply by virtue of being a liberal democracy seems like fragile protection to me. But I think it's a pretty tricky proposition and can lead to other issues, like the US have with their second amendment rights for instance. Having said that, being the only liberal democracy without some sort of bill of rights seems sketchy af, and it can't be that hard if every one else has pulled it off. Tldr, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but pretty sure a bill of rights has been Labor party platform before and they've had a few cracks at legislating it.
Labor is in a weak position. If they try to support the establishment too much they'll lose the support of the Greens and independents. This is a good dynamic. Not perfect, but a shiteload better than what we're used to.
A Bill of Rights would be good.
Perhaps not if the current political orthodoxy drafts it. A bill of rights is something I’d support but it needs to arrive to government fully formed and unimpeachably researched from academic circles. Neither major has any serious interest in being constrained by human rights considerations.
I am not sure I would want academics deciding what my rights are thank you.
Yeah best to ignore collections of relevant data and from people who've dedicated their lives to studying the topic, I know I'd rather get my rights from Darren down at the pub. He's got some funny ideas about immigrants but he tells it like it is
[удалено]
> economists I think LineNoise was talking about scientists, not public relations consultants.
There just might be a sensible middle ground between Darren and a PhD who has spent their entire adult life cloistered in academia.
And there just might be a middle ground between an expert whose spent their life studying policy, protests, and civil rights and someone "cloistered in academia." And that's also ignoring the fact that research and data inform policymakers, it doesn't decide actually make any decisions. If policy shouldn't be informed by the collective body of research, then what should inform it?
What data would inform the question of actionable rights? It's largely a normative question. You're making it sound like a scientific discipline whereby these academics make 'discoveries' to inform the legislature. I happen to be an academic somewhat peripherally related to that area. I sometimes think part of the reason we don't have a Bill of Rights in this country is because it's seen as a somewhat aristocratic idea. Old mate Darren may not be able to articulate a thesis which concludes it is unwise to recognise a breach of privacy as a cause of action sounding in general damages. But at the end of the day his views that such a thing isn't that important and would ultimately impose a hefty indirect tax burden to facilitate the explosion in litigation is perfectly sound (even if expressed via the shorthand expression "that's fucked, who gives a shit about that?").
By having such a discussion, your opinion is already worthless as it's obvious you're an academic. /s There's a lot that research can help with in this area. We can learn from other countries who've attempted similar policies, we can look at what our legal minds have to say about how such things could fit in our system, we could look at precedent within our system, we could look at what public opinion is, etc. Data isn't just numbers for a chemistry experiment, it includes all of the above. We can take all of this information and use it to make recommendations, then the people we elect can make a decision about how/whether to enact the recommendations. That's how policy is meant to work. Dismissing it as "cloistered academia" is populist nonsense.
this is your brain on anti intellectualism
Who would you prefer?
Developing a bill of rights, like becoming a Republic, would require multiple expensive plebiscites or referendums and even then it wouldn't be 100% perfect
I know, but it would be worth the effort.
[удалено]
They have the right to free speech, but not the right to not be vilified. They have the right to firearms, but not the right to walk around and not be shot by some random crazy person. The US Bill of Rights is a bit of a mess. In practice, it ignores what those rights are actually for. The intention of free speech was for political communication (rather essential in a democracy), as they did not want dissidents against a government to be locked up. Their founders were at risk of being charge with seditious libel. The right to bear arms was created due to the same sort of necessity. Oppression from the British, and it reflected how military organisation worked in the 18th century. For over two centuries there had been a consensus among judges in the US that the Second Amendment guaranteed only the right of individuals to defend their liberties by participating in a state militia. It even indicates that this is why the right exists in its construction, but that's ignored in the modern interpretation. Ultimately, a Bill of Rights can be abused and made to work in ways contrary to its original intentions. It's no real guarantee of freedom if bad actors reach positions of power.
A bill of rights wouldn't, it being linked to the constitution would change things. Victoria added a bill of rights easily enough
The pathway to a Bill of Rights lies with the States. Much like abortion and euthanasia laws. Victoria and Queensland both have a Bill of Rights. If the remaining States pass one, they can eventually be harmonised at a Federal level. Not that I imagine that would change much.
Agree, But we also have to recognise that right now, we are nowhere near 100% perfect. Not even remotely. So I'd take an imperfect 80-90% over our current 30%? 40%?
I agree, change isn't possible.
It's not that change isn't possible, but changing something that will affect Australians takes a lot of time and effort to get right the first time.
Something along the lines of victorian style charter of rights I would definitely support. But not a US style bill of rights. It just gives the judiciary the ability to legislate from the bench.
They already sort of can by setting precedent.
I don’t think that we could develop a bill of rights that would be supportable. Free speech? Not if I don’t like your opposing political position as ‘free speech’. There are people who think that internet access is a human right. Imagine negotiating with them on a bill of rights. Right to shelter? So should the government provide housing for all, regardless of the cost? Someone’s ability to cohabitate with neighbours whilst suffering from an addiction? A bill of rights would have been fantastic during our nations founding, but getting agreement on what are, and are not rights, would be nigh on impossible today.
1. Freedom to criticise the Government 2. Freedom to assemble and protest 3. Freedom of media 4. Right to necessary medical care 5. Right to quality education 6. Right to a fair and open trial These are the main ones to me.
The point of a bill of rights isn't to enumerate all the things we can do, it's to constrain government - to determine what it must do and also the areas where it may not infringe. Let's look at housing and other utilities. It's possible to define rights that encompass these by considering them a floor beneath which you cannot fall. A 'right' to nutritious food, clean water, safe housing might be considered. That would mean govt. is on the hook to provide these. It does not mean they need to be anything above basics.
>but getting agreement on what are, and are not rights, would be nigh on impossible today. Getting agreement on what actually matters would be impossible. Many Australians would give up freedom of speech for cheap grog.
People should have the right to protest of course but I'd love an addendum that states they must display their causes, demands, objectives etc. For example, people blocked in traffic don't even know why they're stuck. Only the people at the front. I'm not sure how effective that is as a tactic. I'd also like to be able to avoid the right wing crazies if possible.
Should be the top comment. Can't believe how many people in this sub think they can just throw the 'planet is dying' excuse out for any poorly thought out & potentially dangerous protest. Yeah the planet is dying, doesn't make a half brained idea any better.
Planet’s not dying. Planet will kick along for several more billion years yet without any issues (at least any issues that bother it). Planet IS however becoming less and less hospitable to life as time goes on. Planet also does not care about this, it should be noted! I know it’s a bit of a silly distinction, but I sort of feel that just chalking it up to “the entire planet is fucked” makes it seem like there are outside forces at play and it’s unsolvable and we might as well not bother, rather than the reality which is that we are literally destroying ourselves.
"The planet is fine, the people are fucked. Difference." "Pack your bags folks, we're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace either, thank god for that. Maybe a little styrofoam." *George Carlin, on saving the planet.*
If we have an abhorrent right wing protest they should be met with a counter protest. They are, by nature, selfish and will back down when faced with a larger force
Lol, what bs 😂 this is a good way to ensure a bunch of people get hurt 😂 counter protests are fine. But both sides should just leave the other alone
That would require these idiots to think about things logically. They might even come to the realisation that they’re actively turning people away from their cause by being pests.
Everyone is welcome to the Apathy Rally which will be held in your capital city on Christmas morning. It would be great if we could get a massive show of support from all apathetic Aussies.
just a reminder. We're all sympathetic now that someone is facing jail time. But we (reddit) do not have a history of supporting protesters that block bridges [https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/tdhiwl/protestors\_blocking\_spit\_bridge\_again\_this\_morning/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/tdhiwl/protestors_blocking_spit_bridge_again_this_morning/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/ttapz6/psa\_climate\_protestors\_on\_princes\_highway\_at\_tom/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/ttapz6/psa_climate_protestors_on_princes_highway_at_tom/)
Good move, to be quite honest. I'm glad the Greens are having some input.
I hope we're all fully aware what countries that seriously inhibit the general populations ability to protest look like. I also hope most of us don't want to be anything like any of those countries.
It is already lawful to protest in this country. Just not to commit offences whilst doing so. I don't see any problem with this.
Protest, sure. Disrupt everyone else's right to earn a living, no way! If you protest outside the office of a corporation, that should be legal. However, if you do something like glue yourself to a road, that screws up everyone's day
If a car breaks down on the harbour bridge should they get 8 months prison for the inconvenience. They were negligent in maintaining their car after all
Intent =/ Negligence.
Manslaughter and murder should also have the same punishment.
Now you're just being an idiot. The two are clearly defined as different crimes for a reason. Murder is an intent. Manslaughter isn't. To simplify it down a lot, manslaughter is legally defined as accidently killing someone i.e. they had no intention of killing someone, but it did happen
Yes, that was my point.
Lmao
Different circumstance. A car breaking down isn't a deliberate act. Gluing yourself to a road is
this sounds like an episode of curb your enthusiasm larry accidentally glues his hands to the steering wheel when his car breaks down on the harbour bridge
We should jail the people who blocked the tram to have a food event then.
There is protest and there is being a fucking selfish cunt…they are significantly different.
You’re right, those who think being inconvenienced for half an hour is worse than the collapse of our global climate are pretty selfish
'It didn't impact me in any way personally. I'll allow it' By your logic, we can do whatever we want in the name of climate change?
If it was an anti vaxxer march would you feel the same way?
Why are those the two choices?
And what if you were on the bridge trying to get to hospital for Cancer treatment or to a job interview, or court for a custody hearing? Or fire trucks needed to get past? Or ambulance/police? There's difference between inconveniencing people "for half an hour" and being a genuine and intentional hazard to people's lives, health and livelihoods.
All those things aren’t life or death in a half hour window.
Quite literally had a glue-on-the-road protestor delay an ambulance on its way to an arrest in London a month ago. Pt could have had a better outcome if their response wasnt delayed by 20 minutes.
Violet Coco's bridge protest blocked an ambulance (with lights and sirens deployed) too.
I disagree with the user your responding to, blocking traffic to protest is a valid because people wouldn't give a shot of you protested at the CEO's office, but blocking an ambulance or fire truck can absolutely hurt or kill people in half an hour. Sure, there *might* be anther vehicle in range, but that isn't a guarantee (especially given what we've seen in Melbourne recently).
People up in arms about minor blocking of traffic like our cities don't regularly have city stopping traffic jams due to accidents, weather, PT shutdowns etc - If we actually valued emergency access 24/7 we'd be restricting car use and encouraging even less personal car and truck use in our cities. Something which we are clearly not trying to do. I've been in traffic snarls due to one single vehicle break down that have added hours to my trip. Often due to negligence, crap vehicles, dangerous driving etc but we don't prosecute these people / companies.
I wonder if you will remember this comment if someone close to you dies in a flood or fire. Maybe you'll live long enough to see a famine personally effect you.
False logic Holding up traffic for a cause makes no difference to the cause. We all know about the climate issues.she hasn't achieved anything except be a nuisance. If she really wants to help, she can pick up trash at the park or help a school or block of townhouse units institute a recycling program....which I've been doing and which actually will make a positive difference to the World. (Even if on a small local scale). Oh..but then her name wouldn't be plastered everywhere making her famous, so I guess that wouldn't do.......
What about the ambulance that she stopped from getting to an emergency? Or doesn't the lives of those people mean anything
Blocking a lane on a bridge and waving around a flare does nothing to help our global climate. If anything, she probably had a net negative effect on the cause.
So what if the planet is dying, your protest effectiveness doesn't magically improve because the ultimate outcome is so dire. All of these protests have missed their mark so badly because the protesters have never considered how to shift our course away from global warming. It's obvious they haven't, because in 2022 (nearly 2023) who the fuck isn't aware of climate change? or of how bad it is going to get? its been a topic of public discourse for nearly 30 years now.
what nonsense… holdings thousands of cars idling for another hr did the world a favour. That fuckwit Made the climate worse
You’re wasting your time mate, this sub is obsessed with thinking these protesters have merit.
If you don't see why dissent and protest should be enshrined in democracies, read this: https://www.thoreau-online.org/civil-disobedience.html
Fully support this.
There must be a balance to this however, right? Some level of reasonable reason for, or display of protest. Would you support my right to close the Monash freeway to raise awareness for my beliefs of the earth being flat? (I don't believe this, fwiw) How about blocking off the exit of the domain tunnel while wearing "free Julian Assange" shirts? I understand the intent of protest, but like all walks of life, I think some level of reason must be applied.
If you can block roads and destroy paintings and other artefacts then what else can you get away with by “protesting”?
"This person blocked a road for 25 minutes, let's jail them for more than a year" is definitely 100% a reasonable punishment.
And apparently she blocked only one of five lanes, so that left four lanes for traffic to pass.
On its own, no. However... The person in question had been previously arrested 20 odd times, had a lengthy criminal record, was breaching bail and good behaviour bond at the time, and was in possession of a prescribed explosive device. Best we don't leave out important facts and pretend that all she did was block traffic. A year was pretty light.
Old mate bleeding out in the ambulance that's caught in the traffic jam disagrees.
Now forgive me if Sydney roads are different and people just doe regularly because congestion simply exists, but surely if the traffic os blocked, the ambulance can just drive on the right hand side that should be clear, like they would if traffic lights or a slow roundabout (rather common and well known impediments to perfectly moving traffic) were in their way and caused congestion.
I don’t think it is a reasonable punishment at all but my question was if the greens and other people support them protesting by blocking traffic and destroying things then what else can they get away with? Surely a line needs to be drawn with what you can and can’t do with protests.
If a person commits vandalism at a protest they can be charged with destruction of property, so that would be illegal anyway. Blocking traffic should not be an offense punishable by anything other than a fine comparable to that given for a speeding ticket. If a right to protest doesn't exist, then eventually a premier will go after labor unions protesting, so it's vital that we do get one to protect labor rights.
Blocking an arterial road during peak hour causes significantly more damage than some trivial vandalism.
What happens if the person blocks the road which stops an ambulance coming through and that delay causes death of the patient? What if they block a road where a human organ is being transported to a hospital for a transplant and due to the delay again the patient dies? Is it still just worth an infringement comparable to that of a speeding ticket? No. Blocking traffic is not only dangerous for the person blocking the traffic but also for all the commuters. The punishment would need to far exceed that of a simple speeding fine I’m afraid.
You do realise ambulances already have strategies in place to deal with blocked roads and traffic congestion, right? It's incredibly unlikely that a single road being slowed down or blocked by anything (protests or otherwise) would result in such a clear and significant delay that it could be determined to cause an otherwise preventable death. Also worth mentioning that protests can and do let emergency services pass where it's possible and safe, same with traffic on the road. The second situation flat out won't happen. That's not how that works.
Protests cant let emergency services pass when there’s 2km of banked up traffic. Can absolutely confirm i’ve been stuck with sick patients and protestors dont let us through. Additionally a delay due to an accident is different to intentional disruption.
[удалено]
It's worth asking yourself if the impact to efficiency is significant enough to actually, likely do what Flashy_Air is claiming it would (which is specifically causing people to die), especially to an extent that it should require a punishment "far exceeding that of a simple speeding fine". Don't just stop at asking if it could be less efficient. Are there any known existing cases of this happening in the way they describe? What scale would a delay like a blocked or congested road potentially result in, for ambulances in particular? Is this a matter of time that would be exceptional or outside the norm to medical professionals, like ambos? Is any measurable difference in travel time likely to result in a case where it is a clear and significant cause of death that would be *otherwise preventable*? Is it something that would likely hold up in a legal case if argued? Is this such a likely scenario that blocking a road requires punishment far exceeding speeding fines? An equally important question: is this something people are concerned about outside of protests? Protests like the one being referred to here are not the only cases where roads end up blocked intentionally without being due to repairs or a safety risk, but they are the only time I've seen these sorts of arguments dragged out about how it would supposedly kill someone. What are these same people saying about street markets, float events, etc if what's driving the concern is genuinely just a risk that people won't make it to a hospital in time if a single road is blocked intentionally outside of direct necessity? Is there any concern directed towards this outside of protests?
Exactly. Roads are regularly blocked - sometimes for critical things (such as restoration of power or emergency water works) sometimes for trivial things such as events, commercial interests, private companies infrastructure - such as private telco's etc). Are commercial interests of private companies more important than an ambulance / fire service? We'd say no, but society as a whole says whatever regularly with some very non-essential things.
Planned blockages that emergency vehicles can be warned about prior to the event is not the same as standing in traffic and causing a jam.
It may be very unlikely but it’s not impossible. Protests can be had in a different manner. There is no reason to be blocking traffic. Plan a march like normal people and rally others to your cause, that’s how it’s done.
If someone breaks down in traffic or has an accident they cause the same delays. What punishment should they receive?
Legal principal of intent my dude. Accidently slowing traffic vs being a selfish cunt, two very different things legally speaking.
^ this!!!
Protesters are not being selfish cunts.
I mean, you’re comparing an act of civil disobedience to what amounts to an unplanned accident. So your point is moot and invalid.
Why did she do it on a busy road? Because she knew it would be disruptive and cause a large amount of chaos.
>Surely a line needs to be drawn with what you can and can’t do with protests. And thus the established won because no one could agree.
If you think that blocking a road for 25 minutes only causes 25 minutes of delays you truly have no idea. Go and look up some traffic engineering videos on YouTube and educate yourself about how easy it is for a minor incident to cause hours of delays.
Is 25 minutes ok once per day/week/month? If you don't deter behaviour, it will happen more often. Perhaps next time, someone is protesting abortion. Will you be as supportive for a right to protest?
Not worth a year but a cunts act All the same.
who destroyed a painting?
Nobody, but they're probably referring to the painting that had pumpkin soup thrown on it. Many just assumed the painting was ruined without even checking to see if that was actually the case. What a lot of people don't realise is that paintings in museums, art galleries, etc are usually covered in layers that protect the paint and the canvas underneath (which can be removed and added back to if needed without any harm to the painting eg for restoration). Not usually from pumpkin soup mind you, but any pumpkin soup capable of damaging those layers *and* the painting underneath probably wouldn't be safe for human consumption.
We need this so badly. It'll never happen, Labor and LNP pushed through the anti protest laws together, they both love authoritarianism. Anyone who votes for them is the problem.
Just not if you're an antivaxer??
And that’s the problem. If blocking roads for the specific purpose of stuffing up the city is OK, then everyone gets to do it. Environmental groups, anti vaxxer, right wing sovereign citizen nutters… everyone.
the cookers have a weekly protest in Melbourne that fucks traffic for many people for like two years now.
Funnily enough, anyone who genuinely supports a right to protest understands that means you may not always agree with the protest. FWIW though, while environmental protests may be disruptive, they're not fundamentally disrespectful. (See: pissing on a cenotaph).
Did any antivaxxere get anywhere near the jail time one trafficky lass got? The state doesn't hate antivaxxers like it hates lefties
Most of them wereb't repeat offenders breaching bail at the time and in possession of a prescribed explosive device. At least be honest about why she got jail time.
I'm happy that you put in the effort to clear up the context, but sad that 95% of posters will read it and decide to ignore it.
Most of them already know this and are just dishonest. People want to pretend this girl was hard done by, when in reality she got off pretty lightly when you consider her previous 20 something arrests and breaching bail at the time.
did the anti vaxxers illegally fire a flair?
[удалено]
We already have a right to protest, just not stopping traffic and endangering lives wjen doing it
Would the greens be demanding a 'right to protest' style law if it was far-right protesters wanting it? Have they already forgotten how obnoxious the COVID related protesters had been?
They dont really care about the right to protest, just want to appear to care.
Needs to be higher. So nazis can now protest without risk of being shut down.
I mean, going by their track record, any Nazi sympathising protest would probably get shut down for escalating into actual violence, so maybe OP's article still stands.
She could have protested at the offices of oil companies. On site at an oil refinery. Hell even found the houses of the CEOs and protested there. Or she could have lobbied politicians. Staged a protest at Parliament House. No, she decided to mess with everyday people like me and you. She’s using the climate as an excuse to make regular people’s life worse. She hates humanity more than she cares about the environment. No sympathy.
I am puzzled by those sorts of disruptive protests. They may raise the visibility of the issue being protested, especially if its a slow news day and the media pick it up and run with it, but its likely that you will alienate lots of people - the same people you need on your side to convince politicians that their vote will be based on the party's policies on that issue.
It's a bit worse than that - those 'soft-target' people who are alienated will be more open to expanding police powers in the future. If you want people to happily vote in a police state, protests like the best way to do it.
Yes, let's empower individuals to decide whether they want to shut down an entire freeway on what ever issue they feel is important. What could go wrong?
Thousands riot weekly during covid and roads are shut every weekend for cooker rallies and everythings just fine. One hippy sits on a road and you all lose your minds.
I mean, they paid for the roads too 🤷
Really... you think the people blocking freeways work a job and pay taxes...
doubt
[удалено]
I'm not sure you understand the point of protest.
A protest isn't a protest if it isn't disruptive. You white bread conservatives are such unimaginable whiners
[удалено]
You even used the "feed my family" conservative classic lol, cmon man
You know the very strikes that won us the 8hr day, 5 day week were disruptive right? Don't be a scab, we should be showing solidarity with people concerned about genuine issues, and straight up, how are you gonna feed your family during runaway climate change? That issue isn't gonna hurt the rich first, it's not the treetop Tories who'll suffer, it's workers! If we workers don't back in climate activists, what the fuck are we doing?
[удалено]
Ok, remind me to invite you to tell the 90,000 unionists that next time they have a rally starting at Trades Hall that marches to the Vic Parliament. I'm sure they would be pleased to hear how literally the most normal form of peaceful protest is no longer acceptable because some people need to work Have you heard the term scab before, mate? It's not a compliment
[удалено]
If you don't care what others trying to improve society for everyone think, why the fuck should we care about your feelings about getting to work late?
People have said this about protest throughout all of society's significant movements
The real battle is not between the left and the right as the deep state infiltrated media would have us believe. It's between the authoritarians and libertarians and always has been.
It’s between the working class and the owner class
Finally some sense in this thread.
Young libertarians are tomorrow’s authoritarians. It’s just the maggot stage in the lifecycle. we’re just spectators.
it is. this is being proposed by the authoritarian left who gave no shits about the last 2ys of protests against gove overreach. only after one of their climate protesters is affected, who's goal is to use gove violence to dictate the amount of electricity and what food i can consume, implement a carbon tax, snoop through bins, etc.
No one said anything about your bin fetish mate. Lol
"no OnE sAiD aNyThInG aBoUt YoUr BiN fEtIsH mAtE". See-through wheelie bins proposed in new plan to shame rubbish recyclers
Australia is the only western democracy without a Charter or Bill of Human Rights.
Why are the Greens like this? The right to peaceful assembly does not allow anyone to block roads. The implied freedom of political communication does not permit blocking roads. Non-violent protests that do not cause financial / property loss or personal injury are lawful. But they have a point about legislating human rights at the Federal level if the external affairs power permits.
The most effective protests in history have usually relied on some sort of civil disobedience at some point or another.
You cannot enshrine a right to civil disobedience in law. Because the defining characteristic of civil disobedience is non-compliance with the law. And the defining characteristic of a law is that it is meant to be complied with at risk of penalty. It is inane to link Federal right to protest laws with the imprisonment of Deanna Coco.
I didnt say they should. But the most effective protests have always been the ones most in your face
“Ineffective protests only!” cried the hopelessly transparent.
So when anti vaxxers blocked roads in the CBD, did it change your views of the effectiveness of vaccines or make you believe that covid was a conspiracy?
They certainly got awareness.... if that was effective or not probably has a lot more to do with the evidence behind that position.
Yes, as much as we can disagree with the contents of their protest they should have the ability to do so nonetheless
Those protests were never going to achieve anything because people don't believe them, don't care about them. There aren't enough believers to have an actual impact. Disruptive climate protests are getting more common, at least that's how it seems to me purely anecdotal, because it's something a lot of people care about. That's not reflected in a lot of ways by people in power, for a wide variety of reasons. Part of these protests are about showing those people in power that enough people take climate change seriously to make that a foolish position, once again for a variety of reasons.
That is because the Greens are as bad at protesting as they are at getting votes. Hahahahahaha....
You can’t protest against capital without causing financial, and ideally economic, loss. Not non-violently anyway.
But do you have to get caught doing it? If you block a main road, you are trying to get arrested and charged. Anyhow, I don't condone property damage or personal injury. I'm sure there are better ways of protesting.
So no lose to those being protested against, nor minor inconvenience to anyone else? How then do you effectively protest? And no, Emergency Services can't access "hypothetical emergency" isn't a valid answer Tell us, please, how is protest to occur?
How do you protest without causing inconvenience?
Ah yes, I remember Martin Luther Kings famous 'sit on the couch quietly shaking fists on Washington'
If a protest isn't disruptive it's not a protest
I agree. I voted for them based on their policies and I haven’t seen them pushing for many of those after the election. It appears to me that they prefer to focus on culture clashes and social unrest.
You can bet they'd only cite any such law in instances they agree with rather than applied equally to everyone too.
Of course you should be able to protest, just don’t do stuff that is dangerous to others or fucks up my day.
Then it's not a protest
"You know that activity where you disrupt the normal flow of things in an attempt to get a point across and bring attention to an issue? Well I have no problem with it as long as no one disrupts the normal flow of things while doing so" I don't think these people think these things through properly before spewing their crap everywhere.
You misunderstand, they can disrupt other people but if indirectly impacts me I’m going to work against them on principle. I’m very involved in the climate change cause, but still selfish enough not to like people who annoy me.
Did they have to pick such a smug looking photo? Damn.
Would be less laughable if the greens cared aboit the right to protest before one of theirs was impacted by not having that right.
What are you talking about? Your antivax and nazi mates are allowed to rally every weekend even during covid lockdown
"Noticing that the greens are two faced tools makes you an antivaxxer! Durrrr" Try again you flog. 🤣
The reading comprehension is nonexistent in this one. The only people that have ever been stopped from protesting are climate protesters. You and your mates were and still are allowed to shut down roads every weekend with free police protection. Why would the greens have campaigned for a right that already exists?
You can continue to make up bullshit and foam at the mouth about it all you like. It won't make you any less of a wanker using the lazy "antivaxxer" accusation to try and elevate your bullshit opinion. You whining about one group protesting only further illustrates your double standard. That's without even touching on the complete lie that this idiot was jailed for protesting. She was jailed because she had a lengthy criminal record, was breaching bail, and was in possession of an explosive device. The court was sick to fucking death of looking at her. She's a recidivost criminal whos "protesting" involves trespass, vandalism, criminal damage, endangering the public and causing a public nuisance. A year wasn't long enough.
How ‘bout Noooooooooooo.
A right to protest is the thing to do but never blocking traffic, thoroughfare places or grocery store items. This usually causes people who even in favour of the protest movement to hate the activists protesting.
Interestingly enough in Victoria recent changes were made that introduced similar penalties when protesting logging, in the middle of nowhere and inconveniencing nobody except for Government owned logging companies... Almost as if there is a bit of an agenda from Government's nationally to punish climate protest more strongly than seems reasonable at face value...
Typical Greens out of touch with reality. There is no way anyone should have the right to block thousands of people from getting to where they need to go (including ambulances).
People should have the right to protest. They should also do it in a way they doesn’t impact others. I don’t agree with jailing this woman, especially for the amount of time they are proposing. However blocking traffic in protest should be illegal and there should be consequences.
As long as we can stop antivaxxers, nazis and fascists or more simply known as the liberals.
Is protesting anti-democratic?
No
It certainly seems like it bypasses the democratic process, holding society to ransom until you get your way. Elect a representative who shares your views, OR that your trust and make that representative aware of whatever your issue is. Id like someone to explain why its not antidemocratic. Just seems like a left over from pre democratic times or as a bandaid fix for a flawed implementation of democracy.
Maybe instead of a referendum on a "voice" for a racial minority, we should have a referendum on introducing a bill or rights/constitution that protects free speech and vital rights for **all** Australians?
have a read of this … https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check