Those interested in this topic should read the timely piece by Henry David Thoreau: "On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience".

Thoreau was a quiet man, not a revolutionary, yet he mused long and hard over the boundaries of legitimate authority and the point at which the citizen has a moral duty to buck the system, even if it means contravening the (questionable or amoral) laws of the state. or when a greater harm was being done by abiding by the law.

The problem we have in 2006 is that large numbers of Australians have lost respect for authority figures, but yet seem disempowered to do anything more than grumble to their mates.

Those in authority have effectively disabled the public conscience, taken the wind out if its sails. Australians care about things as much as ever, but have been locked into passivity by two means - growing insecurity and the dog-eat-dog survival regimes that have overwhelmed our workplaces, universities and even academic institutions.

Authority has never been more disrespected, yet more entrenched all the same.

I look forward to seeing how the right reacts to this piece.

Couldn't agree more with your comments on terrorism, though at the same time we should never adopt an attitude that it's okay to kill civilians - 'terrorists' may be much more desperate, and some of their reasons may be more just, but the religious warfare element cannot be condoned.
Although, neither can killing to secure resources.

That being said, it is far too easy to label an enemy a 'terrorist'.
One of the first rules of war is dehumanise the enemy - they can be communists, nazi's or terrorists, but never people as people are harder to shoot.

Terrorism is a more effective label than any other we've seen - there is no strict definition, essentially any militaristic group that is outside government control is a terrorist organisation.

This is worrying, because not all governments are just, and those that are run the risk of becoming unjust, simply because they can now point the 'terrorist' finger. Anyone who uses force to disagree is a 'terrorist'. I suppose the Americans who rebelled against british control would these days be 'terrorists'.

So too would the few who brought arms against the chinese government's occupation of Tibet. Most were pacifists and simply died. That on the other hand, is okay, dying doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist right?

Though sometimes it does... those who hanged themselves in Guantanamo weren't performing a suicide act out of desperation, according to the pentagon it was an act of war. How naughty of them.

I'd advocate the labelling of any organisation that kills unarmed civilians as terrorists.
That includes through 'collateral damage', assassination, bombings etc. See how many terrorists we have then.

John's comments are touching, but naive and surprisingly unsophisticated for someone who is no longer a 19 year old undergraduate.

All the world powers have sophisticated military, police and security apparatuses: France, Russia, China, UK, US. Ours is comparitively mild.

The major threats to a peaceful life are not terrorists but states that devote enormous resources to authority - in the form of military security.

North Korea (followed by Iran) is devoting enormous resources to develop nuclear missiles. North Korea coerces its people with a truly Orwellian security apparatus.

A cute example is here http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/02/news/army.php:

"... Seo Hyang Wol, a 43-year-old North Korean housewife, has given birth to nine children, making her a shining example of a national campaign to increase birth rates.

But that is not the only thing that makes "women across the republic abuzz with talk of emulating her," according to North Korea's official news media.

Inspired by the leader Kim Jong Il's "songun," or "army-first," policy, Seo named three daughters Chong Byol, Pok Byol and Tan Byol - or "Rifle Star," "Bomb Star" and "Bullet Star."

"...I produced many children hoping they will grow up and become gun-barrel soldiers for our army-first fatherland," Seo said in an interview in March with Pyongyang Radio. The report added that names like her children's were "fast becoming a vogue" in North Korea.

Although dismissed as ridiculous in the outside world, stories like Seo's provide an example of how closely tied North Korean society has become to Kim's army-first doctrine.

The doctrine promotes North Korea's nuclear weapons, missile programs and huge military spending even as the country remains the second-largest recipient of food donations in the world after Ethiopia.

That policy, coupled with huge damage caused by recent floods, is pushing 23 million North Koreans into a new food crisis - in a country that has already lost an estimated one million people to famine, according to relief officials in Seoul.

"...Comrades, we can live without candies, but we can't live without bullets," Defense Minister Kim Il Chol said in a speech last week"

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/07/north-korean-taepodong-2-missile.html

‘John Howard as prime minister committed us to wage war in Iraq even though public opinion was running strongly against the war.’

My memory isn’t what it used to be, but I seem to remember polls showing that, initially at least, most Australians approved of commitment to Iraq. Apart from that, the author seems to be suggesting that an elected parliament doesn’t have the right to make foreign policy decisions.

In ending his absolutely crazy piece with: “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty”, he ignores the fact that ‘injustice’ in a democratic society is invariably a subjective and emotional value that minorities who don’t get what they want from the democratic system try to force on the rest of us.

Public opinion is also against taxes. Therfore we should abolish all taxes.

Dr John also naively states that stopping defence expenditure will solve all the worlds problems - except until some lunatic comes along that wants what someone else has.

It is true, however that the world produces more food that what can be consumed. Why then do people starve? It's not a shortage of food but difficulties in distribution. You can't transport food to where there are no rail or road networks. The market would sooner bury excess food rather than incur the cost of infrastructure upgrades to these regions and paying for the transport.

Wow, what a crock! Firstly John Howard was re-elected with an increased majority as well as control of the senate. The war was a big issue in that election so the Doc's assertion that public opinion was against the war is untrue. So much for acting as an "absolute ruler", you must be thinking of Fidel Castro.

Secondly, anyone who considers the fascist terrorists in Iraq the moral equals of the French Resistance during WWII has some serious ethical issues.

Thirdly, seeing our soldiers are civilian-murdering terrorists I'll expect the good Doc. to be there when they return home with his bucket of red paint and some revamped "baby killer" type slogans. It'll be like a return to his halcyon days of the '60s.

It really is a joke! An old broken down anarchist moaning over abuses of authority in his democratic country whilst at the same time giving support to fascists who actually know how to abuse authority on a breath taking scale. I would have thought that wrong, is wrong, is wrong. But according to the Doc, who commits the wrong seems to be the most important factor. Actually, it seems you can be right, but still wrong, due to the fact that you're America or some other degenerate capitalist nation of swine (and/or apes).

I think the good Doc. should step out of his social policy faculty and spend some time in the psychology department.

Narcissist - if man can put man on the moon - he can sure as hell get food to the starving on this planet. It is not a lack of roads (or transport generally), its a lcak of political will or caring.

I have admired Tomlinson's work on the "Band-Aid" social welfare system - I was introduced to his thought by a friend who studied under him. In particular, I agree with his view that a Guaranteed Minimum Income is necessary - see http://www.basicincome.qut.edu.au/ where a lot of his work is stored.

But I disagree with this piece.

Sadaam was a fascist. Simple as that. I am glad he was overthrown, and so are most of the Iraqi people. The terrorists who attack both US soldiers and Iraqi civilians refused to take part in elections, because they knew they had almost no support amongst the Iraqi people. I hope they are crushed.

Everyone talks about how the Iraq war was about oil.

Why did the evil USA not just do a squalid little deal with Sadaam to get oil? Why did they dissolve the Ba'ath Party (Sadaam's fascists) in Iraq? Why did they support elections that have led to a moderate Islamist government?

Tomlinson talks about "Australia’s involvement in the 11-year blockade of Iraq that led to the deaths of 6,000 Iraqi children each month.".

That would be the blockade that went on for every single day of the Clinton administration? The blockade that Bush has now made unnecessary?

Fascists should be overthrown. Let's hope Saudi Arabia and Egypt will be the next to go.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-Left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

You are a wise and compassionate man John. Thank you for this piece. By not looking at today's world through the lens of history, but through the lens of one's own present day heart, you speak the common sense so sadly lacking in much that is called 'information' these days.

Persuasion is merely the leveraging of force. Peoples minds/rationalisations may be changed by sweet words, but it is the blunt force of the State or Markets that actually changes behaviours. When was the last time persuasion alone created enduring change, unsupported by price or regulatory signals?

Ditto on what plantagenet wrote, nation States have always and will always be far greater killers than terrorists/insurgents, as is being demonstrated currently by israeli/lebanese and us/iraqi fatalities. May god, and our children, have mercy on our souls

Crime Prevention strategies would become useful and we would go a long way futher if they, the policy makers and their enforcers understood the paradigm you promote here John

Tops for this article - and especially the reminder where you say; "We know that people who can be persuaded are far more likely to comply in the absence of the authority figure than those who, though unconvinced, can be forced to comply in the presence of a figure of authority."

But where does that leave us -

Without better efforts in communication - without the engagement of pro-active empathetic listening - a will to understand and more room to participate .... we are....?

..... unjustly - repeating history perhaps? This is at the cost of human life .... see http://www.miacat.com/Media_Pan_One/UN_Forum_News/DPI-NGO_Evans_8ix05.htm

When it comes to "non-violent direct action".... I agree " “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty” and I just wish Australians and especially Queenslanders would do more to be heard when it comes to being outspoken on the need to protect our democratic, civic, human rights.

I agree that we are not as free as we may feel we are, until there is more done to protect what we have NOW... given the past few years locally, and the impact of world events.

See "Collective Securities" other notes - http://www.miacat.com/

And I ask anyone with more information to please tell me as I would like to do more around this topic ie: build a reference page of links on the surrounding discussions on "collective security" and issues at both local and global levels.

This raises a very interesting issue. If the notion that, "if injustice becomes law then resistance becomes a duty" then the farming community of Australia has every right to start making truck bombs and torching national parks.

Injustice has become law under the vegetation management laws. These have been justified on grossly exagerated need with no consideration of the rate of new forest regrowth that compensates for land clearing, and no distinction between removal of young regrowth from existing paddocks, the majority, and actual forest removal, the minority. And this has enabled the enactment of disproportionate measures with disproportionate sanctions.

These laws have also been deliberately drafted to avoid core principles of justice and equity like,innocent until proven guilty, the right to remain silent, defence of innocent mistake of fact and defence of bona fide claim of right.

So cases that do involve bona fide claims of right are brought before ordinary Magistrates Courts when, for every other instance, a magistrate must oust himself from such cases to ensure that they are heard by an appropriate higher court. And this, in itself leads to gross injustice because vegetation cases can cost well in excess of $150,000 to defend but, even if the defendant were to win, the maximum scheduled costs that can be awarded are in the order of only $6,000. In one case this was barely enough to cover the cost of the required number of photocopies of relevant documents.

And all one can conclude from all this is that the majority urban public who have either approved these measures, or condoned them by their silence, should feel very fortunate that this scale of injustice has been visited on a such a stable, law abiding and above all, patient minority as our farming community.

But if they ever start to lose that patience, if they see too many of their neighbours taken down on bogus science by predatory governance then, as the old Dylan song goes, "it aint no use to sit and wonder why, babe. If you don't know by now".

Once again Perseus really does himself and his argument a lot of damage, with;

“If the notion that, ‘if injustice becomes law then resistance becomes a duty’ then the farming community of Australia has every right to start making truck bombs and torching national parks.”

Perceived injustice and some level of resistance is one thing. Extremism is something else altogether. Let’s respect the notion of taking a principled stance against unjust laws or governance, but let’s be very careful not to overdo it or misapportion blame or cause innocent parties to be affected or cause different issues to be opened up or cause others to take action against a perceived injustice that has resulted directly from our action again a perceived injustice.

I hope the rural community, even those that may share some of Perseus’ concerns, resoundly condemn the notion of national park destruction or terrorist attacks on government or non rural people or whomever, even if they do feel strongly aggrieved about the vegetation management act, inequitable rural / urban expenditure, etc.

I went through the debate on tree-clearing legislation with Perseus on this forum a few months ago, in which it was shown just how misguided (but not entirely wrong) he is about injustices in this whole matter. But even so, if he feels that strongly about it, he should yell it from the rooftops and perhaps push the legal boundaries a bit…. but be very careful not to alienate those for whom he is working and not to draw opposition from those who could be on his side if he played it right.

So it does indeed raise a very interesting issue – one of just how much resistance becomes a duty when injustice or perceived injustice is imposed.

Non Violent Direct Action is opposite to "by stander apathy". While I agree with you Ludwig, for your views on not to alienate those you are working with... I think the issue here is to "engage" affirmatively but "not to use violence".

Structural Violence (the worse violence of all) impacts us all in different ways and comes from systematic processes, or is it autocratic sources on many levels and most certainly DOES require a civic "duty to resist".

I think there is a middle sail here and talking to Perseus whose views have quite some merrit is strategic.

From Cape York, especially in reference to the "Wild Rivers", and "CYPLUS" which are also economic issues are very hot... and I believe this is the kind of thing Perseus is discussing.

If the new sustainable development laws flooding the bush took into consideration "peoples life-quality" - by forcasting their needs for improved infrastructure - as the "whole sustainable plan" I know I'd feel better as I feel very uncomfortable in both camps at present.

A lot of these policies I believe in but the way they are impliemented is highly undesirable.

The article outlined the arguement of what happens when we use "force". I say A has power over B until B does something differently. You find however that to find B... you need people who are themselves (organised) and prepared to think through and do... something that deserves the resistance or change.

That is where I wish... we would be more able and willing in this society as a whole.

Perseus

I have a better idea.

Farmers are up in arms over the very laws you mention, because they are DESTROYING the environment, by disallowing Woody Weed scrub from being removed and restoring the '1 tree every 100 meters or so, native grassland' which existed under ABORIGINAL stewardship for thousands of years. Providing feed for Roos and other animals.

My idea is direct all that anger at the Wilderness Society and in particular at Reece Turner.

Have a read of the transcript of this Sunday Program interview.

TOMMY RYAN:(Aboriginal Elder) They burned this bloody invasive scrub they've got here. It burnt all that and you got good feed coming back, and kangaroos, emus and all that come back and eat around it.

Yet Reece Turner can say:

REECE TURNER: It will be a real travesty if the government failed to deliver on its promise by ending land clearing to allow this issue of woody weeds to open up the biggest loophole to broad scale land clearing we can see.

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2039.asp

I urge everyone to write to them, and condemn them outright as 'eco terrorists'. ( I did)

http://www.wilderness.org.au/

“I think the issue here is to ‘engage’ affirmatively but ‘not to use violence’.”

Agreed Miacat

Boazy, don’t be swayed by this one really dodgy article. All is not as it seems. The ‘invasion’ of woody scrub is not “destroying the environment”, it is the result of changed ecological factors, and it is just as natural (or perhaps more natural) than the balance that existed under Aboriginal fire-regime practices.

The Wilderness Society is NOT on the wrong track with this issue. How absurd can you get in calling them “eco terrorists”? It would indeed be an enormous travesty if this issue opened up a loophole to clearing large areas of “woody weeds”, which are in fact native species in their rightful place given the change in fire regime.

Anyway, that is way off subject here.

It does however open up a whole ‘nuther’ aspect to the “resistance becomes a duty when injustice is imposed” issue. And that is our ability to know what and what not to believe (ie what is injustice in the first place)… and to be able to have a realistic understanding the relative powers of each side of given debates to get their message across… and to be honest and forthright in their expression.

Even though lots of figures, supposed facts and quotes from various people are sometimes given, we have to be very wary as to just how balanced the presentation is, and what the motivations might be for biasing it one way or the other.

What a waste of such an important topic!

The injustice of enforcing authority is a painful issue indeed:
it begins from potty training and forcing innocent tender children to attend kindy, leaving scars for life.

But just as Tomlinson begins to tackle this painful issue, he gets completely side-tracked, discussing his off-topic political views and ranting about particular government policies which he opposes, such as the war in Iraq.

Fortunately, thank God, we have no conscription in Australia and nobody forces Mr. Tomlinson to join the fight in Iraq. Australians who fight in Iraq are adults that voluntarily agreed to serve the policies of the democratically-elected government of the day.

Yes, I fully agree that when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty, and therefore believe that the topic should receive more serious consideraion rather than be misused for unrelated ends.

Plantagenet “John's comments are touching, but naive and surprisingly unsophisticated for someone who is no longer a 19 year old undergraduate.”

Absolutely!

Oh in the middle of this insignificant piece of detritus we come across the words “In his deciding to go to war, he confused his role as our leading representative with that of our “absolute” ruler.”

The prattle of the impotent. The sour grapes of one of those who voted and were, thankfully for the rest of us, in the minority.

The problem with romantic socialists is the starting point of all issues is what would be, debatably, the goal.

The Idealistic socialist will start from the point of some ideal non-existent nirvana and work backwards from there.

The real world works like this, we are where we are, the way forward is determined as forward from where we are and not simply a straight line to where some socialist minded minority would drag us.

As for “If we were consistent, we would recognise that those we call terrorists and those we call servicemen and women are both killers.”

Several IRA targets in UK were too close to my home for comfort when I lived in the UK to want to forego the option of using military force against terrorists of any sort. John Tomlison’s drivel is dangerous because to follow it to any conclusion would deprive us of the right to sustain a defensive position against a committed and corrupt adversary.

So John, you might think that we should bend over and brace ourselves against determined and bloody terrorists but when they decide to act and blow up a supermarket or cinema, I trust you will give a care for the victims, especially if it is my partner or daughters who were going about their lawful business there.

Communication is the only defense.

Killing others is a pretty sick version - given for years now it has not worked either.

Communication is the only defense - Direct forms of communication - where something gets done to stop this mess.

That is the challenge facing this planet... we each know more than we say about this, because it requires balls!

Ludwig dishes up the view from within the very department that has impemented the injustice as law. There are, in fact, a number of departmental officers who have gone to considerable lengths to manipulate public opinion through contributions to blog discussions during and after work time. It would not be so bad if they made their identity known but this is rarely the case. Instead, they are in there pushing the official departmental position to people who are under the mistaken belief that they are the opinions of ordinary men and women. It is even more sleazy when it is couched in terms that portray a departmental objective as if it were a community consensus.

But one look at the wilderness society hideoid would convince most reasonable observers that environmental policy has been handed to ideological jackbooters with eyes that show less empathy than Pol Pots. And a community that can look the other way while such vindictive psychopaths are turned loose on a demonised minority community has trashed the social contract.

My fear is that this combination of departmental information management, coupled with unjust laws administered by totally callous officialdom will sooner or later push some poor innocent bastard to crack. And frankly, I don't even care anymore if the result was just a few departmental goons in a ditch covered in flies. But so many of these cases end up with the family being taken out as well and that would be a real tragedy.

We have already had suicides that are directly attributable to departmental persecution and who knows how many more have been indirectly induced by the policy millieu. And we in the bush need to decide how we will respond to these situations.

Will we see them as isolated incidents of random tragedy?
Will we see them as victims of a predatory cult in government?
Will we see them as casualties in a silent war waged by a government on a part of its community?
Or will we see them as the final proof that the essential bonds that bind communities have been shredded?

Structural Violence (the most serious violence of all) documented & ID-ed here Perseus.

We discribe the ignorance of how regional silo cultures work, we note their influence, the list of selective invisibles at work, ie: non appriopriate but impacting no-response's, resulting in outcomes which reflect depletion (addressing critical area's of breakdown in sustainable development ) which helps explain why shrinking communities, ... are being dafted - after re-approaches to deaf ears.

MacArthurs Ghost revisited?

What's gone totally wrong...?

Communitication between civic members in the community and government, needs to be a two way paticipatary process before we can expect to experience - any real change.

As I see it, "force" is a signal, reactive-to (when) communication breaks down eh!

Perseus inadvertently raises more interesting points regarding freedom of speech.

1. Being seen to be, or being suspected of, expressing vested-interest views, when you are making every effort to speak independently.

No matter how many times I say emphatically that I am speaking for myself only, and no matter how often am I critical of my ultimate employer; the Qld Govt, on this forum over a number of issues, he maintains that I speak on behalf of my employer. He knows full well that this is not the case, but still announces on this forum at every opportunity that I am a departmental officer, as though that is some heinous crime and as though public servants aren’t “ordinary men and women” and don’t deserve the level of freedom of speech that ordinary folk have.

2. This sort of deliberate misrepresentation, which is really slander, is an unfortunate side of untempered freedom of speech.

If we all just concentrated on the guts of the subject matter that we are discussing, and learnt how to debate things properly, it wouldn’t matter whether people were speaking with vested-interests or not. Those with unannounced vested interests would soon be shown up.

Wouldn’t be nice if we could develop a type of authority that encouraged logical discussion and strongly discouraged the sort of outrageous rubbish spouted by the likes of Perseus. I refer to stuff like this:

“ideological jackbooters with eyes that show less empathy than Pol Pots.”

“vindictive psychopaths”

“I don't even care anymore if the result was just a few departmental goons in a ditch covered in flies.”

3. The real injustice inherent in our level of freedom of speech is that this sort of hate-mongering can be bandied around so freely.

Many people on this forum have concerns about extremist expressions of hate, in relation to the Middle East and terrorism in particular. I think Perseus’ style of writing falls into this sort of arena, and I’m sure a good portion of the populace, while upholding fair and reasonable freedom of speech, would like to see it eliminated.

So, Ludwig. You appear to admit that being called a departmental officer may well induce people to shun you. Yet you discount the possibility that the actions of government and the people who implement policy may have influenced the perceptions of part of the community towards those officers.

And you conclude by expressing a desire to censor any statements of people who may have acquired that perception on the basis that this first hand perception of an effected minority is inconsistent with a more benign perception of an uneffected majority.

This might be beyond the capacity for ethical discernment of the average departmental officer, Ludwig, but it is not now, nor has it ever been, left to the perpetrators of injustice to define injustice. Indeed, there would be no such concept of injustice at all if it were left to the perpetrators to define.

It would be like asking Mr Bubbles if he has been "looking after" the kids. And the similarity between the abused power of government and a paedophile is as strong as it is no doubt uncomfortable for you to consider. But each acts in the absolute belief that their actions are beneficial, cause no harm and produce no victims. And each regards the perpetuation of their role, in another generation, as a fundamental objective of incontestable merit.

Now you may need to characterise these perceptions of unjust governance as extreme or fringe but I could go into any country town and get absolute agreement from the very bedrock of those communities. Talk to the community builders, the stall holders, the raffle sellers, the kids sports coaches, the mentors and the fixers and you will discover that these so-called extreme views are actually the reasonable conclusions of the mainstream of a minority community that is defined by discrimination on the basis of occupation, location and family background.

• Yuyutsu ..."What a waste of such an important topic! The injustice of enforcing authority is a painful issue indeed: it begins from potty training and forcing innocent tender children to attend kindy, leaving scars for life"... Yeah as a matter of fact, courtesy of aristocratic Jew echelon masters ingenuity knack, who throughout the millenniums always placed their bets each way, to score an ample of a steadfast incubated Jew rulers on the global arena. Representing an exclusive tyrant entity breed of the limitless significance via apartheid, we had to have, fait-accompli elimination regimes.

Starting right from a kindergarten via compulsory elders-of-zion run schooling and cultivated universities buffer, which to yield an ample of a cuckoo-nest incubated disposable puppets. Accompanied over the years with connived referees issued clandestine dossiers as norm. No wonder the imbeciles lot to be nurtured with a carte blanche, whilst incorruptible souls of the role-model citizens (as our mavrick Mark Lathan) to endure devious wrath. Yet many of the ill-informed minds failed even to realise what hit them at all. Without expecting in the wildest dream to face such a nightmare of the utterly insidious act!

As our youngsters intellect being methodically moulded into elders-of-zion profile to suit application. Courtesy of the compulsory elders-of-zion schooling criteria, which making sure to prevent juveniles mind from creative roaming and getting innate ideas on his or her own. Instead being fed with lots of trash, until every applicable brain-cell was certainly occupied. No wonder for earlier burned-out saturation effect, intended to debilitate into obese couch potatoes all the damned non-kosher outcast-minds (beyond the targeted genome objective by coalition of the willing connivers).

For an eye opener proceed to the diminished democracy exposé ... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4625#47660

Further to my last post…

Not only did Perseus grossly abuse his right to free speech by expressing abject hatred beyond any sense of reason, as he has done a hundred times before on this forum, in the most-disgusting terminology that he can come up with, but he has also abused his right to be on this forum by yet again breaking the rules with his failure to relate his post (the first on 8 August) to the subject of this thread.

Both of these things are serious problems with freedom of speech. If we could somehow be compelled to just debate things properly and not get personal and not jump to the ludicrous end of the spectrum and not obfuscate discussion by hijacking it off in another direction, then freedom of speech would be a wonderful thing!
.
“Now you may need to characterise these perceptions of unjust governance as extreme…”

I do indeed. Of course, departmental officers are not the perpetrators of injustice. And if there are elements of injustice within government policy, they have be weighted up against its intent, overall effectiveness and possible ways of reducing unfairness.

Perseus knows full well that the whole vegetation management area is an honest attempt to correct past mistakes and find a balance between environmental health and productivity. The unfortunate thing is that it is inherently not going to be entirely fair to all. But that situation exists in a myriad ways throughout society.

If tree-clearing legislation was really unjust for most, then there would be a huge outcry. Quite frankly, the outcry has not been that great. Having said that, restrictions are certainly tighter in NSW than in Qld, and this is reflected in some of the strong messages we are hearing from farmers there….. and I think they do have some legitimate arguments.

So yet another interesting point in the free-speech saga is raised here – honesty of expression. Perseus makes the government and its officers out to be totally unjust when he knows full well that this is not the case.

I have gone back over my post and can identify nothing that indicated "abject hatred" as you have claimed, Ludwig. Could it be that you are attempting to defame me? This would be consistent with your desire to censor comment that does not conform to the party line and your responses are consistent with a whole range of vindictive behaviours exhibited accross the board in a number of departments.

A good example of this mindset is the victimisation of not only whistle blowers in the Health Dept but also to senior officers with very real concerns about service delivery and patient welfare. But the response has always been to shoot the messenger.

The same is going on in Primary Industries, Natural Resources, EPA and others. One can only reasonably conclude that we are dealing with sick people in a sick system.

what is clear to every farmer that reads your posts and your rationalisation of corrupt and unjust policies is that we have an obligation to our children to ensure that you gain no benefit from unlawful and unjust conduct. You may be able to abuse power but you cannot escape the fact that none of the ecological values that you prize above even the fundamental rights and liberties will survive the next century without the goodwill of the landowners.

You and your kind have squandered that goodwill and I only hope the broader community understands your role in the resulting environmental harm before it is too late to restore those values.

The only people who will have any chance of restoring any values to the landscape will be landowners. But that will be on our terms alone.

Well how about that Persy. You can’t see any “abject hatred” in your expression. That is truly incredible.

“ideological jackbooters with eyes that show less empathy than Pol Pots.”

“vindictive psychopaths”

“I don't even care anymore if the result was just a few departmental goons in a ditch covered in flies.”

Who are you trying to fool?

And again, you have not related your post to the subject of this thread!!

So in your next response how about addressing one or more of the four points that I have raised about freedom of speech as a result of your comments, which I mentioned in my last two posts.

Yes, landholders need to be onside when it comes to understanding the motivation and methodology for regulating further clearing, and appreciating the government’s attempt to strike the right balance between environmental health and healthy rural productivity and lifestyle. And in my experience, including frequent property visits over many years across north and central Queensland, the vast majority are.

And incidentally, any farmer is free to look up the user index and read some of my posts on other threads in order to gain a wider perception of my views on fundamental rights, balance and sustainability.

Some of this may feel like a waste of time but I am certain it is not. There is no waste.

However, And

I feel it is important that "brave people" who work in government get an opportunity to speak without being attacked. This is not a government forum, it is our forum, a place where we have the opportunity to be open and converse with others on issues that we care about.

I am heartened to see people, who I know struggle to keep their jobs because of the obvious restrictions ... when you work for government - NGO's and business groups, and then also come to this forum, giving their extra time - and valuable energy - to participate outside of all the other work.

This online forum is invaluable. Let's keep it safe, and encourage everyone to have a go.

To rat on "whose whose" is to undermine to objective.

Everyone needs to be on board if their is to be change, and we all must have the space to learn. I have learnt much from all of you. My thoughts are always being expanded by what I read from others... and I am often comforted by the fact that there are people, who bother to contribute.

Agreement is not as important as learning that there are so many other perspectives and, we all have different references...

To play out - or "act out" otherwise is infact playing into the (I will) "force" idioms of syntactic perceptions which we began to discuss. We can't make anyone think anything... we know that is the only thing that we can NOT do.

Our influence on the other hand... helps to explore what we do or do not understand... eh?

I think that ought to be valuable.

Gosh, Ludwig, you claim I am off-topic when the essence of the article is our duty to resist unjust laws. I nominated some unjust laws and provided evidence of same. In particular, I pointed out how departmental officers had conspired to introduce regulations that are completely outside the legally defined regulatory standards. But keep up the spin, I'm sure you show it to your political masters to demonstrate the 'purity' of your motives.

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty" to which we can add, "act in haste and repent at leisure"

CR wrote and asking a question of Tomlinson
"So John, you might think that we should bend over and brace ourselves against determined and bloody terrorists but when they decide to act and blow up a supermarket or cinema, I trust you will give a care for the victims, especially if it is my partner or daughters who were going about their lawful business there."

I can vouch for John Tomlinson and say without doubt he would provide care for your partner and ensure that he was well looked after. He would also care for your daughters too.

He would not discriminate [as you would] on the basis of class, creed and race, religion or culture.

It seems non-violent, non racist anti war people like JT are hard for many here to comprehend and believe they exist. But they do!

Deleted for breaking forum laws on posting limits and for objectionable content.

“I feel it is important that ‘brave people’ who work in government get an opportunity to speak without being attacked.”

Absolutely Miacat.

It is unfortunate that we think of them as brave, or perhaps foolish. Attack the views expressed by all means, but only very misguided people or people with devious agendas attack them personally simply because of a perceived connection to a government department or whatever.

I wonder how many people read this forum but are reluctant to contribute, even under a pseudonym, for fear of retribution. I also wonder how many contributors espouse only views that their employer would like or would be neutral towards and will not say anything risqué.

Consequently, I wonder just how fair and balanced this medium is.

Of course, the convenors have made it as fair as possible. But larger forces mean that it is still probably biased towards short-term profit-driven agendas and against long-term wellbeing and (yep, my favourite word) sustainability.

[Deleted - advertising for a blog.]

•Miacat..."When it comes to 'non-violent direct-action', I agree...'When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty'...And I just wish Australians and especially Queenslanders would do more to be heard when it comes to being outspoken on the need to protect our democratic, civic, human-rights. I agree that we are not as free (as we may feel we are), until there is more done to protect what we have now...given the past few years locally, and the impact of world events".

•Miacat..."I think the issue here is to 'engage' affirmatively but 'not to use violence'...Non violent direct (OLO) action is opposite to...'by-stander apathy'. Communication is the only defense-direct forms of communication-where something gets done to stop this mess. That is the challenge facing this planet...we each know more than we say about this, because it requires balls"!

•Ludwig..."I wonder how many people read this forum but are reluctant to contribute, even under a pseudonym, for fear of retribution"..."I also wonder how many contributors espouse only views that their authorities would like or would be neutral towards and will not say anything risqué. Consequently, I wonder just how fair and balanced this (OLO) medium is? Of course, the convenors have made it as fair as possible. But larger (ADL) forces mean that it is still (probably) biased.

•Leo Braun ... Point taken with a sinking feeling just to realise that conscientious citizen's sincere advocacy for the direct democracy in Australia, resulted in an above 4750#51337 obliterated message consequences, compounded by one-month's suspension for utterly stunned messenger! Who went beyond the ADL tolerable language of expression on OLO forum in addressing Zionist malignancy as the cardinal issue for the civil society in shackles.

Apparently as globally subjugated communities faced likewise unattainable goal to establish fair-living, civil-society. What proved to be absolutely futile in spite of millenniums long so undeterred good principles faith in sly rulers humanity. Even highly pitched bravados were often blasted from distant Australia against the other tyrannies reign, yet in reality that didn't mean for the genuine justice to come downunder in-here into Ghetto Australis.

As to the diminished democracy exposé: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4625#47660

Hence, with lots of tenacity genuine progress must be made towards achieving people's freedom of speech via OLO forum (sole liberty beacon). Envisaged by many as a bastion of the participatory democracy in Australia. Where rising number in dissident scholars published their fearless protest topics against the fascist practices perpetration by the insane Israeli junta, under protégé concordat with the bewitched uncle Sam. Especially pertinent at the moment with the hijacked world-destiny at the crossroads. At the time when unyielding Zionist supremacists (veiled under revolved aliases cast) evidently had a great stake in blurring the deep-rooted disparity between the Jews on socio-ideological grounds.

Whilst a honest analysis of the macabre dilemma to attest most unequivocally that it's wrong to lump all the Jews together with the evil fanaticism, that supremacist Zionism has come to represent. It insults some of the sane-raised Jews and deflects vital debates from the core issues in question, such as usurpation of an entire Jewish race by the silver-tongued Zionists. Who hijacked likewise our parliamentary system, inflicting thus mortal blow to the representative democracy in Australia.

No wonder for my emotional outburst within the passionately expressed call towards the direct democracy in Australia. Contributed by me in response to: "What are the Constituent Parts of Authority"? Relevantly raised topic by John Tomlinson, I am thrilled to quote: "If we refuse to be sucked into the 'profits first, people last' mentality, and struggle to ensure that no poor person goes to sleep hungry, then we might have sufficient moral authority to convince people that we really do want to live in a better world".

"Any authority which coerces -- proclaims to the world that it lacks sufficient 'moral' authority to persuade. Some coercive authority figures attempt to enforce their authority by suggesting that they derive their authority from some higher power: god, democracy, the national interest, the common good, the general will or the rule of law. But when they do make such claims, we should remember the old demonstrators' slogan that says: WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW, RESISTANCE BECOMES DUTY"!

As to the lethal tentacles consequences: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4513#55539

What inspired me towards the boldness of my expressions within the above posted comment on Aug 12th, regrettably tainted by controversy of the named evil-doers tribe. However on the bright side my input was constructively elaborated towards the direct-democracy. As I called on the Local Electorate Offices to enact a vital umbilical-cord-interface between the electorate constituency and periodically chosen MP, who must adhere to the Representative Democracy notion. Where just-as-vital on MP was to serve the people, and not merely the executive rulers of the day.

So much for conscientious citizen's bold stance taken for the better Australia, towards the future generations to come with children of the better tomorrow. What has been the focal point of my contribution to the community, as I always spoke the truth within the era of universal deceit. Contrary to somersault antics by organised Zionist stooges, who relentlessly inundated OLO forum via collaborated jolly-drift across the topics. Bent to pursue their fanatically propagated treachery against the interests of the civil society in Australia.

No wonder when having Zionist stooges indoctrinated as Pavlov's dogs to push their weight around the OLO protectorate and piss-all-over people's intellectual territory. So watching their chutzpah style and reading their sly pretexts, one gets an impression that the fanatical Zionists who lacked a basic compromise notion (for the humanity sake), adhered always to the cowardice practice of toughing it out, whatever it takes within their propped doctrine of a bait-n-switch...smear-n-deceit...lie-n-repeat...but never ever admit any wrong!

Yet finally when a brave citizenry began exposing these racist Zionists for who, and what they are, and what an agenda they stand for, these so highly maligned thugs who lacked a basic morality virtue, dare to nitpick in turn, scream and bitch on the opposing view holders, threaten OLO administrator, send ADL hate-mail and scuffle threads focal-topics within an attempt to destroy vital debate evolution. In a sheer desperation to silence all the criticism against the diabolical Zionism. So even when people's valid censures are voiced legitimately against the insane Israeli junta atrocities, they go for the jugular and besmirch decent human-beings.

Meant to halt conscientious citizenry expressions of an-utter revulsion against the fascist tactics onslaught, culminating lastly as the powerful Zionist lobby scored one month's suspension for me from the besieged OLO forum (just for speaking my mind for the better Australia). Tantamount to breaking OLO forum laws on posting limits, where insignificant number of hyphenated words (beyond the 350 word-limit), represented an indictable offence (in spite of the precedent set by others). Not that I would ever to contravene the commonsensical norm a propos reckless clutter of the viewable forum space.

As a matter of fact my conscientiously posted comments consisted always just of a few compact paragraphs. Contrary to the deceitful propagandists (veiled under revolved aliases cast) on the Zionist payroll so indiscriminate clutter OLO bandwidth around the clock. Profoundly equipped with ADL intellectual lingo arsenal and the latest in internet gadgetry for a sole purpose to demonise amateurish Jew dissidents. As amid so unfortunately condoned sabotage, the courageous soul is being laughed at, and dismissed out-of-hand as a crackpot by the short-sighted bystanders within the inherent apathy.

Totally oblivious of disenfranchised citizen's plight of endeavour, who often lacked liveable shelter. While battling moreover for the meagre access to the lethargic internet in the Ghetto Australis, that has been thriving on the human misery. Warranting on jobless to cope extortionist hundreds of dollars for the elementary telephone socket, followed by $30 in a successive monthly line-rental-cost. Not mentioning an extra $50 per month, should one endeavour to access 21st century internet via viable gear. Which is beyond the reach of the jobless citizens with the limited resources extent.

At the time when human resource recruiters cartel of blood thirsty hyenas who could not justify even the means of making their middleman's living, are funded in tune of hundred millions of dollars by federal government to prevent the jobless from seeking direct engagement venues with the prospective employers! Courtesy of the exclusive breed jellyback spiteful pollies, who are stoning fatally our role-model citizens, while forging this marvellous nation (if not for archaic vast wastage industries) into oblivion.