If the protesters are non violent, why did they not disperse when ordered to?

Because they wanted trouble .. this is the perception they transmit and the message we all got, the typical look of the protesters we see at every major event, G20 and such. We all know them since they all dress the same way at every "happening" and are indeed the same mob of feral rent a crowd anti-social misfits we see at every anti-whatever event.

"Headlines such as "Occupy protest turns violent" simply generate more support for the Occupy movement"

No it doesn't, it made me reach for the phone to call the City Council in Melbourne to complain.

Flush them out .. charge them and jail them if they continue to break the law, that's what it is there for.

It's about time this mob took responsibility for its antisocial actions and was held accountable. By all means protest, but when told to move on, do so and don't whine, they sound like spoiled brats .. oh wait.

They are the 0.0001% of the public that are moronic followers of any selfish antisocial public exhibition.

We are constantly subjected in Melbourne to this same unruly minority who attack everything, claiming to be representatives of the majority .. the Occupy movement is just another excuse for anti-social behavior, before the occupy movement in the US, there was zero interest.

They should go camp in front of the Age newspaper building, where they all belong. Their rent seeking ideology would fit right in.

They have no support from the community beyond a few of their foolish mates and other social failures.

The occupy movements were dispersed because they were contravening council laws. You can't squat on council property.
There had been negotiations between the protesters and police for a number of days to try and get the protesters to move on. The protesters in Sydney only had a permit for 2 hours, yet stayed for about 5 days! The police were very lenient. Also in Melbourne, warning was given to evacuate the site but some professional protesters and other assorted layabouts were determined to be arrested so they could cry "excessive force." The refusal to move was premeditated. The police have every right to remove people squatting illegally on council property or on any property for that matter.

Furthermore, you can't compare this movement to the Arab Springs. There, people were/are tortured and murdered for opposing government policy, here no such thing occurs.

I see from Pip's own words the self-fulfilling nature of the Occupy movement writ large. It's vague targets and objectives grow daily - now police brutality has joined the list.

Look, if you REALLY believe you represent 99% of the population why not put it to the test: register a political party, publish a manifesto and put candidates in as many lower house seats as you can. And put up a Senate ticket and invite people to just tick your Senate Party box on election day.

If the votes go your way you get to effect (or at least heavily influence other parties to support) some of the changes you seem to want to effect.

If they don't you get the message and stop this silliness.

Most Occupy types run a mile form this idea because it puts them to the ultimate test: electoral relevance.

I won't hold my breath.

This member of the 99% may be fed up with corporate greed, but he's also none too fond of hippies, especially when they try to set up communes in public places. As such, I have absolutely no problem with the constabulary using whatever means necessary to turf the buggers out.

Protest by all means - but do so in a appropriate manner. How does occupying a park prove anything? When the hippies at my uni wanted to protest against some perceived injustice, they occupied the chancellery building, rather than the public areas of the uni. A far more effective way of making their point.

When the police moved in violently against protestors in Egypt onlookers around the world were shocked. Yet here we show contempt for the liberal rights of our own citizens. People say they are "ferals" or "the usual suspects". These people are *citizens*. They have liberal rights. There must be public space, and it must be clear that public space is for the purpose of free assembly. Police in Melbourne abrogated protestors' human rights as enshrined in the Victorian Human Rights Act. *They* broke the law; and legitimate laws at that. Democratic and liberal rights are always for those who think differently. Otherwise they are nothing.

Tristan,

The right to free assembly does not extend to the right to set up hippy communes in public spaces.

AR: So you would have supported the break up of the protests in Egypt, then? (which was an ongoing occuptation)

I agree Councils have the authority to move campers on from public spaces, but that doesn't give the police the right to act with what appeared to be abrupt brutality.
A wonderful poster held aloft in NYC asked, "Hey dude, where's my middle class?" We're lucky (again). We still have one. America might not. So in that sense, the Occupy Wall Street movement is more relevant.
But isn't it all about greed? Corporate CEO's and their obscene pay packets epitomise this, but they're not alone in claiming a disproportionate share. There is still enough to go around, especially here in Australia, but not if some get greedy.

This is where you leak credibility, Tristan Ewins.

>>When the police moved in violently against protestors in Egypt onlookers around the world were shocked. Yet here we show contempt for the liberal rights of our own citizens.<<

You ask us to compare this:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/protesters-arrested-as-chaos-descends-on-cbd-20111021-1mb07.html

...with this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/world/middleeast/26egypt.html?pagewanted=all<<

Perhaps you were seduced by Ms Hinman's assertion that the protesters were "inspired by the Arab Spring". Which is cobblers, pure and simple. Closer to reality are Spain's "los indignados"...

http://www.economist.com/node/18959259

...described as "Europe’s best-behaved protest movement".

Interestingly, according to the article, they have actually achieved some objectives - possibly because the outcomes were concrete and measurable. Here, it seems little more than lip service - more a fashion statement than a genuine complaint of hardship.

Tristan,

You ignore the crucial difference betwixt the Egyptian protesters and the Occupy protesters: the Egyptians weren't hippies. When it comes to hippies, I pretty much subscribe to the Teachings of Eric Cartman.

Which is why I think the police went about it the wrong way. It's a well known fact that hippie hate death metal. The police should have got some massive speakers, and played Slayer at ridiculous dB until the hippies disbanded of their own accord.

…What is missing in our democracy is the structured path from constituent to ruling Government, for the voice of protest to follow. Chris Lewis outlines some comment on the subject, over the page today! Until the path is cleared for this voice to be heard, dissent will remain disaffected and disjointed as it was with the current “anti- Wall Street” protest; which is really an insignificance to Australians.

I think that the difference between the American occupy movement and the Australian protests is in the motivation. In America, they do not have the same health system benefits as we do, in America unemployment is high and growing, in Australia, unemployment is not as rife. In America corporate greed has brought on a housing crises, that in Australia we have not had. My opinion is that the real 99% of Australia is doing well, has employment and recognises the freedom's and the huge blessing it is to be Australian and living in this country.

The protesters that are protesting here are the same ones who protest everything else that isn't to their liking. This time, I agree, this protest in Australia is about rich people being rich and police enforcing safety and laws, not real social injustices.

There was no violence until the police created it. The alternative was to let the Occupation continue. (It is alleged that the Victoria Police removed their identification tags. Does anyone support that? And why would individual police do that?

I attended demonstrations in Melbourne in the late 1960s and early 1970s and I recall individual members of the Victoria Police Force removing their IDs (I think they wore a tag with a number only back then) and it was always an indication that they were about to wade into the crowd violently. It was scary - when individual police started removing their ID, you knew you could be in for a hiding. I personally saw them at close range hitting people indiscriminately with batons, punching protestors and swearing at them.

Genuine democrats can only deplore the police action in Melbourne and it was heartening to see the editorial in The Australian defend the right of peaceful assembly.

All that the State Government, the Mayor and the police have achieved is the lifting of a rock only to drop it on their own feet. Future rallies and occupations will be much larger.

I think we should give the cops a couple of snow plows to clean the rubbish of the public road, & perhaps a couple of water cannon to wash off any residue

Public gathering is for public parks, not public roads.

Well said Pip. At last a popular protest movement against selfishness and greed and isn't there a lot of it. Joyce of Qantas for starters. The comments from the right wing, smash them up and chuck them out, mob says it all.
Mandatory detention, genocide of Tamils,humiliation of Aboriginals, the mindlessness of the war in Afghanistan,the mis-use of water,the over-the-top taxpayer funding of private schools, means nothing to them, because its all about THEM, middle class victims of...of...THEMSELVES.

Bruce Haigh

Here's The Australian newspaper's editorial: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/occupying-the-protesters-time/story-e6frg71x-1226173476574

Excerpt from it: "It is not for Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle or anyone else to decide when they have had sufficient time to make their point. There is no meter running on freedom of expression. The internet and social media have their place, but, historically, the town square is in part a space for public expression".

These people are "citizens" ?
Tristan,
From which planet are you watching ? They are twice as bad as those they're supposedly protesting against. Morons who have no idea about putting in an effort.

*but, historically, the town square is in part a space for public expression*

Well Perth has in fact just built a speakers corner, so that
people can have their say. That does not mean that its meant to
be a camping site with tents, which is what the problem was
in Melbourne.

The cops put up with all sorts of abuse, from spitting to biting.
My sympathies go out to them, its a tough job and I wouldn't want
it.

"middle class victims of...of...THEMSELVES"

oh boo hoo Bruce .. grow up mate, you seem to be regressing.

I'm not a victim, I'm an adult .. responsible for my own life happiness and future .. I don't expect others to prop me up or pay me rent

It's called "maturity", look it up ..

Pip Hinman,

I went to see the ones protesting at the Melbourne Plaza the other day.

To protest is a bit asking the bully who has taken your marbles to give them back, I alweys thought.

This time though I was incapable of getting the gist of what the occupiers of the plaza actually wanted.

Patently they did not want to take home a bank. Probably they only wished that the money they put in their bank is not pilfered by those who work within it.

Well, there are two ways of getting this.

The first is to put a guard on the safe and the other is to inspect the pockets of the bankers when they leave the place to go home.

Why are not those who created this financial crisis being charged? They are bashing and arresting protestors the victims of these scams but the financial criminals continue the rort the system.$ trillions in super and $ trillions more in scamming bailouts.

Let the revolution continue!

Who's the clever one, the one who sees a wave coming a mile away and starts moving to higher ground, or the one who waits for the wave to break before starting to move?
I agree we are extremely fortunate in this country. We don't have anything like as much to complain about as many other places. But does that mean we must wait for things to become intolerable before we act?
I would give the Ostrich (head in the sand) award to rpg. for this comment:
"If the protesters are non violent, why did they not disperse when ordered to?"
I would have thought it self evident that a protest can be evaluated by the commitment demonstrated by the protesters. The "OCCUPY" movement has attracted so much attention because they "OCCUPY", get it?
Otherwise it would be called the "MOVE ALONG PEACEFULLY" movement I guess.
Very inspiring.
I don't think nipping down to the Town Square for an hour or 2 with a few signs before moving on to the pub is going to change the world.

It's true that we're better off than the US working people. But do not underestimate the extent to which people 'out there' are suffering in Australia. Unemployment is 'only' 5% but underemployment is 8%. That's 13% of a workforce of around 10 million. (The underemployed are those seeking more hours).

Housing is another area - 100,000 homeless, on one hand, while new apartment blocks go up in most cities while existing ones have 'For Lease' signs on them. 'Over-production'. It's what happens under capitalism - production for the profit of the 1% (ie, those who own and control the means of production and exchange) rather than for social need (and fun).

I could go on but will finish by saying that a lot of the 'Occupy' participants are expressing their sense of alienation from a social system that, in the advanced capitalist countries, turned in on itself long ago and holds back everything, including production, individuality and creativity. As such the participants don't all have a 'platform' or set of specific demands. To me, this is a strength. It's only the beginning, and the last thing anyone needs is the kiss-of-death from the various sects and other 'usual suspects'.

Oh so clever!

""If the protesters are non violent, why did they not disperse when ordered to?"
I would have thought it self evident that a protest can be evaluated by the commitment demonstrated by the protesters. The "OCCUPY" movement has attracted so much attention because they "OCCUPY", get it?
Otherwise it would be called the "MOVE ALONG PEACEFULLY" movement I guess.
Very inspiring."

Then don't bleat that you are "non violent" (get it?), because that has no role in the following actions .. if you provoke, if you break the law and refuse to obey instructions .. then you invite action, and if then force is required, well, clearly you are happy with that outcome ..to call it "violence", gets a little dramatic doesn't it .. but I understand the attraction to be a "victim", with all its benefits in our PC climate these days.

Simple .. (get it?)

remove the ones who attempt to be parasites, this is nothing like protests of the 60s and 70s .. these are self obsessed rent seekers. (get it?)

arjay .. "Why are not those who created this financial crisis being charged?" who are the ones who should be charged for the "financial crises"? Is it the Democrats in the US who insisted banks lend money to people for housing with no collateral? Is it the Democrats who insisted the laws be changed to allow people to walk away from mortgage debt, by handing the keys to the banks?

The banks, are victims in this, the regulation of the US government forced them to behave in a way abhorrent to banking theory .. that's why we didn't have those problems here, we had a different system

It's a little more complex than you probably realize, but I understand the attraction of having a chant or a slogan, so easy, so simple.

I think the underemployed figures are mostly coming from part time pensioners and disability workers. Give the protesters a block of land somewhere on the outskirts of town to have their commune. You can-not disrupt the lives of people for your own agenda. Since when has it been legal to camp in the main street. Law-breakers deserve what they get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8k4Q33BV1k Prof Michael Hudson speaks the truth about Occupy Wall St.

I like Professor Hudson, he's right,we can't call for piecemeal reform, you can't reform organised crime.I can never seem to get through to people the idea that the "Bankers" are nothing but Gangsters, that usury is a criminal occupation.
The problem is that most people, though connected to the internet at home have not taken the step toward making it their primary source of information.

Jay,when criminal banksters create from nothing the money to equal our toil,we become their debt slaves.That is the undeniable truth which most refuse to acknowledge.

(Ar)Jay,

When the banks start sending out heavies to pulverise the patellas of loan defaulters, you guys might have a little more success in convincing folk that they're no better than the Mob.

Of course, if you dislike the banks that much, there is always the simple option of closing all your bank accounts and sewing your life savings into an old mattress. But I'm betting that despite your hyperbole about criminal bankers, you both still have bank accounts.

Thank God most people still rely on their good old-fashioned formal education as their primary source of information - a lot of folk still manage to be quite thick after 13 years of school and few more of tertiary education. Imagine how much worse things could be if folk eschewed all that for the conjecture, fantasy, sophistry, bunk and delusions which make up so much of the 'information' on the interweb.

Rizla,
Sorry for you, you can no longer get away with insinuating that people who eschew mainstream media and education are dumb or crazy, it just makes you look like some Beadle shouting "Heretic!" every time a contrary opinion is expressed in a public discussion.
It's not just banks who screw the "little guy", in a sense that's really just indicative of the size to which this cancer of usury has grown.

People who can't pay their phone bills routinely encounter "heavies", there are also all sorts of loan sharks operating in the community, so called "pay day loan" outfits, Cash Converters, pawn brokers etc and they do employ muscle to get their money back.
People can end up 15-20,00 in debt from a phone plan, with credit cards it's worse and don't even ask what the real gutter crawling personal loan shark charges in interest.
In Victoria we have bailiffs, "recovery agents" and process servers who will come and hammer on a debtors door to intimidate and harass them.
Making money from interest is immoral, it's a form of slavery, perhaps if the "occupy" groups went down to their local
shopping strip and protested in a "think global, act local" action they might see some results.
Small loans, credit cards, parking fines etc and loan sharking are what's crippling the "99%" in this country and also in the developing world, the Banksters are probably out of reach for now but running the Shylocks out of your local town is probably achievable.

The interesting thing about these "occupiers", the Rent a Crowd protestors is that you never see them at any local demo's, in the past two years I've been to half a dozen suburban protests over one thing and another and a couple in the city relating to crime and sentencing.
I also know all these professional "Lefties" by reputation or just from seeing them around town (in spite of it's size Melbourne only has a small political activist scene) and they never ,ever turn up at a rally against inappropriate development, or public safety.

More information that I stupidly and in my own uneducated way was able to find on the internet.

Loan sharks set to trigger Chinese subprime crisis: expert
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1102&MainCatID=&id=20110910000012

Crisis hits India's small loans industry:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12035909

Microfinance: Loan Sharks or Development Agents?
http://eastafricabusiness.ning.com/profiles/blogs/microfinance-loan-sharks-or

Maybe this interview might bring some reason and understanding as to why the protesters are sick and tired of what has been occurring.

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker

More about William Black

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black

Must say I don't find it helpful to merely be presented with links, when no summary is offered of them or at least no explanation as to how they are relevant is given.

The original article was about the 'Occupy' movement. I can only say that I think the editorial (22 October 2011) in The Australian was spot on when it said: "It is not for Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle or anyone else to decide when they have had sufficient time to make their point. There is no meter running on freedom of expression. The internet and social media have their place, but, historically, the town square is in part a space for public expression".

Opinionated,
That's why I love the internet, thanks for sharing, I'd not heard of Bill Black before but I'll certainly check out his site.

Byork,
If you don't like to read or watch short videos then maybe the internet is not for you, Graham likes to see source material produced for comments on controversial issues and we all need to keep on educating ourselves.
Do you know why these elites won't debate or defend their actions in public?
Because in the first instance, being common criminals they are not intellectually capable of such a discourse and secondly their actions are simply indefensible, there's no argument you could construct to justify things like the U.S sub prime fraud.
As for freedom of assembly, look, maybe on the first day there were some genuine protestors in the city square but now the scene has been taken over by state actors and stooges like the RAC,UNITE,Socialist Alternative, Socialist Alliance and elements of the Greens.
These people represent and support Globalist Imperialism, what you have to understand is that there are Commies to the Left and Commies to the right of us, they all want the same thing, global government and communism.
The "NWO", if you will is a vision of a global corporate plantation system underpinned by a second generation Communist social structure based on scientific Racism (or eugenics).