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!