I watched "Q and A," on the evening that students
protested and took over the show. And I have to
admit that while I could sympathise with their
cause - I felt that the demostration went on for far too
long - and became unacceptable. To me it obstructed the
basic exchange of ideas and infringed upon the rights of
others.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for protests and demonstrations.
I feel that protests are a necessary and acceptable means
of expression. However to me, protest becomes unacceptable
when it becomes violent, and does obstruct the rights of
others - (for example, people sitting on tram tracks and
blocking the flow of traffic), to peaceful assembly, orderly protest, free exchange of ideas.

I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others on this
forum.

Should there be guidelines for protests and demonstrations?

yes foxey lady/there are rules..rEGARDING PROTEST.
number one is the second persn to join you has been sent by mossad asio..etc[lest we forget bob brown resigned as it was beginning to emerge he was some spy..for cia..AND BOB JUST WENT AWAY.

THING IS PROTEST DONT WORK
that ukrane postest ciot 6 billion dolars to AGRETATE AND EMPOWER..FOLKS SUCH AS GEORGE SPRROWS..REAP IN HEAPS..via financing ngo's douing a forgeign take over..[protests dont work/the best people need to go to work.tomorrow..and all that remans is the narcs and stooges sent in to spy.

now adays we just need motivate our peer networks[or begin a topic on face book/or play the twitter hash mark game/linking it to other further topics..

so sure we got a right to protest
but no way of enforcing others to obey our/commands
any more than they can command me..and still they try..and stILL I RESIST.

MY LATEST ONE IS IM NOT CONSUMING..[DEFAULTING ON MY POWER BILL]
BECVAUSE ITS INSANE THEY CAN DOUBLE..IT..AT WHIM/TO PAY OFF ODIOUS DEBT[THAT IN REALITY BY BEING ;'CRIMINAL DEBT'..ISNT COLLECTABLE AS IT WAS INSTALLED BY COLLUDING FRAUD/high criminal treasons

ANYHOW/TWO WAY PLAN..govt gets no more[not one cent]
unless..it begins sending people to jail...they know who they are
the proceeds of crime cannot gain lawfull titLE...WE HAVE THE PROCEEEDS OF CRIME ACT..GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY/FORCE ME TO PAY

VOTE NONE OF THE ABOVE
[THIS MEANS YOUR FIRED/THEN WAIT TILL THE DAY INFORMAL-51 PERCENT.]

Foxy, I expect your thread to invoke indignation from the 'Usual Suspects' with howls of angst about the 'great unwashed' and 'rent-a-crowd', and of course the 'professional protesters' who are out to disrupt polite society. This of course will be tempered with the compunctious line, "yes..., well..., they do have the right to protest of course, BUT! it should be done without disruption, and in some inconspicuous manner." In other words, out of sight, out of mind.
My view is, the right to protest is a basic tenet of any democratic society. The outcome of protest is for society to judge. Some will judge protest harshly all the time, others will sympathise, but disagree, whilst others will be fully supportive.
Often issues of protest can make for strange bed fellows, take CSG, farmers combining with Greens to express their disapproval through protest.

Foxy,
Yep you make good sense –now that’s the second time in 12 months you've said something I can agree with.

Meanwhile, poor old Paul is still regurgitating the clichés they fed him at Greenie Sunday school.

I doubt that many in todays Oz would deny the right to protest. What they take exception to is when some groups -–and they're are usually from the left fringe (Pauls bedfellows of choice)— take the view that they have the right to disrupt the rest of society (and do so repeatedly) if it doesn’t conform to their higher divinely received morality.

Youth in particular should never be encouraged to believe that what they say goes unheard, that there are no real avenues for them to express themselves and that they cannot influence decisions that affect them. Evan Pederick might be an example (Hilton Hotel bombing).

There are always those nasty individuals and outfits around who use and abuse vulnerable, impassioned youth for their own secondary gain, even if that is only to hunt headlines while the youths concerned, sometimes school children, some away doubly confused, victims of the political lobbyists and malcontents who gulled them and probably placed them at risk of injury and arrest.

A very difficult task for any citizens with a legitimate protest is how to keep themselves and their issues separate from the noisy, trouble-making serial activists who would jump on the wagon and try to steer it towards their own ends. When that happens, society cannot be blamed for tarring all present with the same brush - 'Fly with the crows and be shot at'.

A common complaint of local members is that they are forever hearing from the squeaky wheels. They would very much like to hear from the huge mass of ordinary upstanding citizens ho are always too busty working, taking care of their families and so on to tell their local member what they are happy with and would like continued and of course, what they would like to see a change in emphasis.

This is what we should be promoting,
http://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/

Correction,

Instead of "ho" and "busty" in my second last para, make that 'who' and 'busy'.

Sorry for the boobs.

Thanks for all your comments thus far.

And please don't get me wrong - I do believe that the
right to protest should be regarded as a necessary and
accepted means of expression. What spoils it for me -
are those people who for whatever reason take over the
demonstrations and obstruct the message that the others
are trying to get through. The ones who (for whatever
reason - simply disrupt and wreck things for everyone else).

However, I was told by a guest over dinner -
that the media thrives on what's "newsworthy,"
rather than quiet and peaceful. In other words -
the more violent and disruptive a protest - the more media
attention it's going to attract. Hence good for the "cause."
I was told that -photographers do not photograph peaceful protests.
Does anyone agree with this - and how true is it?

cont'd ...

I guess that I'm probably not putting things very well
here and you guys can probably do much better than I'm
doing. My primary concern is not to tar all protests
with the same brush. As Annabel Crabb did.
It is the bad eggs that tend to
make the news, get the attention, and distort the message.
I also can't help wondering if this is something the media
focuses on far too often .They do it deliberately - as do
the politicians who are keen to focus on the bad eggs to
deflect from the reasons people are protesting in the first
place.

Those who behaved like rock apes at that Q&A should have their Uni attendance cancelled. They clearly do not deserve access Taxpayer funded facilities.

one protestor in Australia gaoled because he refused move on orders (and paying subsequent fines) when showing an actual picture of an unborn child outside abortion industry. Usually 'progressive ' scream the right to protest unless it is not part of their world view. The ferals on Q&A had no right to shut down free speach although they would of found good bedfellows with the ABC.

<In other words -
the more violent and disruptive a protest - the more media
attention it's going to attract. Hence good for the "cause.">

Good for whose cause though?

Students might want their plight known, but the pests who invaded Q&A had their own secondary agenda. It became headline hunting for some individuals and a looney Left mob - public nuisances - who crave attention and see power in disrupting 'authority'.

What about this?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-20003058

Good for what cause?

Excellent question. I'm merely going on what one of the
student organisers quoted and spoke of on TV.
She seemed to feel that the publicity
received brought more attention to the plight of students.
She felt that people were now made aware of student
feelings and now at least people were discussing the issues
of student fees, et cetera.

otb,

Thanks for the link.

I agree fully with the man being punished in this case.
He behaved dangerously, sabotaged a race, and had not
shown what he was protesting against. He reminds me of
that other pest who was on the news recently - who seeks
to disrupt red-carpet events and attacks celebrities.

Foxy, the protester is much more than the stereotype of a pot smoking hippie standing in the street waving a placard, disrupting traffic. Some of the greatest changes in society have come about because people have been willing and brave enough to protest in one form or another. Mahatma Gandhi by leading peaceful, non violent protest was able to obtain independence for India, giving his life for the struggle. Martin Luther King jr, also gave his life while pursuing the civil rights of African-Americans through non violent protest. In that same struggle an unassuming young girl, Rosa Parks made a small point of protest which reverberated around the world, by not giving up her seat on a bus.
A protest may be the life long efforts of a Nelson Mandela, but then again it could be nothing more than a short letter of protest by an aged pensioner to the local newspaper. Protesters are as varied as the causes they pursue. So many who in past times were condemned as rabble rouses, and trouble makers, for their commitment to protest causes, and what they seen as the justice of that cause, many of these same people are today not condemned, but rather revered as hero's of society. In Australia, we have a proud tradition of protest, from the Eureka Stockade to the Vietnam War Moratoriums. In 1975, Juanita Nielsen lost her life because she protested, and dared to oppose development in Kings Cross Sydney. Those who would stifle protest, also suppress the good of progressive social change. To condemn protest is often tantamount to supporting tyranny and injustice.

Anyone who protests about a handout they receive should have it removed immediately.

If they don't like their handout, they should get a job, & stop being a student.

From my experience, I'll bet they are all studying non subjects anyway, tiddlywinks 101 is usual for this type.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your well reasoned last post.
And of course I agree that protest is the lifeblood
of a democracy. When the Soviet leadership eliminated
many controls over dissidents and the media in an effort
to create greater "glasnost" or "Openess," it did not
mean that the Soviet Union was to become democratized
in the Western sense - but once the faucet of liberty
was opened it proved exceedingly difficult to shut off.
And the Soviet Union embarked on a course that gave its
people a greater say in their own destiny.

We have a striking example of collective action
to stop a war that occurred during the 1960s, when the US
became embroiled in the longest and most humiliating
military conflict in its history - Vietnam.

The Vietnam war came to an end largely as a result of
the antiwar movement, a social movement that consisted
disproportionately of young people, including many
college students. When the antiwar movement first challenged
the war, it received little support from politicians or the
press, and its goals seemed almost hopeless. But the tide
of public opinion gradually began to shift.

In the 1968 presidential primaries, an antiwar candidate
backed by student volunteers did unexpectedly well and
President Johnson decided not to run for re-election.

From that point on, political debate on the war focused not on
how to stay in it, but on how to get out of it.

Through collective action, ordinary people with few resources
other than their own determination had changed a national
consensus for war to a national consensus for peace.

As I've stated in the past - a fundamental insight of history
is that once people no longer take their world for granted,
but instead understand the social authorship of their lives
and futures, they can become an irresistible force in
history.

You'll get a kick out of this Hasbeen, the true mentality of street "activists", South Africans protesting against high electricity prices and poor municipal services burn down a medical clinic and public library:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/south-african-protesters-burn-buildings

Grass roots protesting doesn't work, the idea that change can come up from the streets is a myth, where mob action has succeeded it's been because the mobs have been backed either by a foreign state or by some element within the existing power structure such as the army or powerful businesspeople.

What did I say the 'Usual Suspects' are so so predictable.

Foxy, I ask you to have a listen to the words of one of the greats, a man who never protested openly but made his point through his music. This is what it is all about with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs

yep like other god deniers he certainly lived in fantasy land Paul1405

runner,
Ignore the silly old hippy, a sixty five year old leftist is just as clueless and immature as one of nineteen, they're Peter Pan activists.

"The opposite of fantasy is philosophy,the opposite of mythology is integrity and integrity is truth in action"- Stefan Molyneux.

The idea that civil disobedience or peaceful protesting can force change is a myth, the only thing which can force change upon a government is...wait for it...the use of force.
Even when an army or police unit mutinies or refuses to leave it's barracks in support of it's civilian government that's still use of force.
Hey Lefties, if you're serious why aren't you organising election boycotts instead of Twitter campaigns?

I wish Australians had the balls to protest like the French do.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for that.

One thing that I do enjoy about this forum is
that we regularly encounter various perspectives
in our discussions. Sometimes the perspectives will
contradict each other and at other times they will
complement each other, giving a fuller and richer
understanding of the subject. As I've stated in the
past most people tend to see things based on
personal values and experiences - in other words
from the viewpoint of subjectivity. And I guess
we'll all be guilty of some measure of bias.

However, that's what makes it interesting - isn't it?
Imagine if we all agreed on everything.
There would be nothing left to discuss.

A report on the Q&A melee, which was organised by 'Socialist Alternative' apparently. They got their mugs on national TV so it was worth it to them one supposes. But then a streaker would believe the same.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/socialist-alternative-protest-sparks-qa-review/story-fna045gd-1226907504809

No reason at all for Paul1405 to make his ridiculous claim viz., "Those who would stifle protest, also suppress the good of progressive social change. To condemn protest is often tantamount to supporting tyranny and injustice".

Honestly, as if Tony Jones as compere of Q&A and the ABC were 'stifling protest' by getting rid of a chanting, self-obsessed, attention-seeking, lawless gaggle who were out to disrupt and couldn't even get their banner the right way about. Any wonder government and business are now obliged to have expensive security arrangements in place.

It must be a full moon, the 'Usual Suspects' are out in force, howling like coyotes at that big bright silvery disk in the darkness of the night sky.
Runner, glad you could join us. What, finished for the day, turning those thumb screws down at The Inquisition. In my book, John Lennon was pne remarkable human being.

Anyway lads, we're off to a local, for a couple of beers with our island mates, and to listen to some good old fashioned reggae, lots of protest music there. They kick off at about 8.30 Fijian time, therefore it could be 9 o'clock, maybe 9.30, never know with those fellas. LOL.

Yeah of course, the Anti War movement was peaceful (rolleyes),that's the myth. In reality the peaceniks just sat in the parks on their well padded White arses, rolling joints while skinny Black kids did all the street fighting in Detroit and Chicago and L.A., it was those riots and the impact of uprisings abroad which shook Washington to it's core
1968 was all about war, violence and terrorism which escalated into the '70's and which didn't really end until the mid 1980's.

People who claim that peaceful protesting achieving
anything is a myth - show their ignorance of
history and their apparent lack of the ability to do research
on the subject. All one has to do is Google this subject.
There's plenty on the web that give facts that prove
and affirm the opposite to be true.

@Foxy, Saturday, 31 May 2014 7:33:33 PM,

After five pages are you seem to backflip from your apparent stance in your first post. You now assert that peaceful protests are useless and claim unspecified supporting evidence from Google.

Was your opening post a 'false flag' and in fact you do support the disruption of Q&A organised by 'Socialist Alternative', but you would have preferred it somehow went better? The 'Socialist Alternative' scored an own goal. Is that all that blights it for you?

As can be seen from the report I linked to earlier, Tony Jones and the ABC were highly critical of the immature rabble-rousing and said so.

Maybe you and Paul1405 could address Tony Jones' and the ABC's criticisms?

BTW, peaceful protest was effective in putting out the rubbish in Canberra recently.

Dear Foxy,

In the final episode of "The Prisoner" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner), once the hero, "Number Six", wins and his inherent freedom is finally recognised, the judge describes three types of rebels:

1. ”uncoordinated youth, rebelling against nothing it can define.”
2. “established member[s] of the establishment that bite the hand that feeds them.”
3. ”a revolutionary of different calibre, one who never falters in their aims, one who is magnificently equipped to lead us.”

Now our hero was recognised as the third type; his opponent, "Number Two", was classified as the second type; and that young lad who disrupted the assembly singing "dry bones" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVHqTzyZ-oM) was classified as the first type.

Now did someone mention Gandhi? Yes, Gandhi should also be recognised as the third type. The students in question, however, should not.

yep Ghandi was a true hero of history revisionist.

'Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals. '

charming man.

I RECALL A TIME/WHEN MANY PEOPLE WERE SINGING THIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FotCW5OIFZc
BUT THAT TIME PASSED

i recall john lennin and joko..the bag-in
the bed in..the sit in and the stand in..that changed heaps
then we got 'do they know its xmass'..and 'feed the world' and hunger dissappeared majicly over night

i recall dillon and bob marly/they got the right idea
so much for protest..songs..pro-test..is a particular word
and walking together across bridges healed the sorry histery..instantly

why i recall we burned the draft card/but still attended the draft
imet people who gave away their aussie id to yanki draft dogers/how far are we going to go/to 'win'..whats worth dying for/whats worth fighting for..who knows im not university edumacated like many of you/but loved the decade i went pro-testing..didnt change much but haD A BALL..i lived bush for moths at a time

so what we going to do paint the sydney opra home/or rip the boxing kangeroo off the deep keel/thing is uni students protyesting is a rite of passage/its where life long peers meeet..no on e is really there to learn/its all about who you know/not what yopu know/the old school tie dye.

I know protests are not what one would call "Politically Correct" but they are the only way to go ! I have seen many a politician receive bucket loads of petitions all neatly signed, a few smiles during the handover a photo or two, the politician then proceeds to his office dropping them in the first waste bin he can find ! Its a shame but one thing the 60s and 70s can tell you is that if your upset enough, to go to all the trouble to go out into the streets, with placards in hand ! They will listen ! Otherwise its just all smiles,handshakes,kisses and bye bye to all your hopes and dreams ! As long as they are not violent, word of wisdom "let it be"
:)

The question isn't whether or not public protests work. The "real" question is whether or not people have the right to protest in the first place.

In a free society, I say they do have that right.

Whether or not the protest gets out of hand is an irrelevancy in relation to the right to protest.

If any of the handful of crazy righties here want to stop protest, or place restrictions on when, where, how or why people protest ..... MOVE TO NORTH KOREA ... you'd be happy there.

Tens of thousands of people have been protesting against this govt, since it became clear they are wholesale liars...and not just students. In fact if one looks at the demographic of the widespread and peaceful street marches we find that many middle-aged and mature people have fronted up to show their disgust at a deceptive regime.

Frankly, when a govt like this (which appears intent on stripping away our widely held and precious social mores) comes to power through deceptive means, then yes, protest is inevitable if we value our democracy.

I'll just mention that the minute those protesters started on QandA, everyone in our house started dancing in front of the telly.

That particular jolly was only just trumped by Tony Jones looking absolutely flummoxed because he couldn't shut them down like he regularly does with the panelists on his programme.

And let's not get too precious about it. It was over (with the help of cutting away to old vision of a singer)in around 4 or 5 minutes. No violence, no obscenity...just a few chants by people who were duped by Christopher "Unity Ticket" Pyne.

hopefully the atrocious left wing propaganda Q&A will get the Abbott axe. I amazed that Poirot's hatred of Abbott could continue to grow. Amazing considering that she insisted he was unelectable. Terrible when people prove you wrong.

Dear Nhoj,

<<The "real" question is whether or not people have the right to protest in the first place.>>

Such a right, if it exists, is an insult.

'Rights' are something given by others, like they do you a favour: they may give you some rights if they please and just the same they may then take them away if they please.

So do you actually need others to tell you that you may protest?

<<In a free society, I say they do have that right.>>

In a free society you are free - you don't need to get anyone's permission to do anything.

But then others are free too - they could beat you down if they wish, or just scream into your ear - why not?

<<If any of the handful of crazy righties here want to stop protest, or place restrictions on when, where, how or why people protest .....>>

So you believe there should be no restrictions?

When - at 2am.
Where - in your bedroom.
How - by torching your bed.
Why - because they don't find your sexual preference acceptable by their book.

No problem?

Yuyu .... nice try. FAIL.

Let me educate you. A "right" does NOT require "permission".

Learn to read Yuyu, as I did NOT say "no restrictions" as you falsely claim. People don't have the right to do MANY things in a free society, like murder, rape, rob banks etc etc etc etc. Duh!! Apart from these types of overtly *OBVIOUS* restrictions, protests should be allowed in any free society. Obviously I have to spell this out word for word in order that you comprehend.

I do ever so hope you now comprehend my original post. Education is good for you Yuyu. No need to thank me.

runner,

I'll try to love Tones. It's a bit of tough call, but I'll try to love an inveterate liar who leads a govt of equally inveterate liars.

I'm not in the habit of trusting or liking people who deceive wholesale...and who then lie straight to your face about their former lies.

As I say, it's a bit of a tough call.

So when the delightful Mr Abbott says "most strenuously" the night before the election that there will be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pension and no cuts to the ABC or the SBS, I kinda take him at his word.

And when, after the election, he cuts education he cuts health, he makes changes and cuts concessions to pensioners and Veterans, and makes cuts to the ABC, etc...I'll overlook it because he's such a bonza truthful guy who's having a temporary relapse?

And I'll also remember what a good fellow is Gentleman Christopher Pyne, who's always berating Members opposite to be gentlemen and be decent and show manners etc...even when he says to Shorten over the dispatch box, "You're such a "...t". (We all saw it and heard it)

Lovely "decent" fellow is Pyne, him and his sham sensibilities.

And I'll remember what a fine upstanding Christian is Scott Morrison as he slavers and salivates on the floor of Parlt with barely contained sadistic glee as he and his minions stuff people into orange pods and tow them out to sea.

Not to mention the rest of this diabolical mob and their radical "Young Liberal" mentality.

It's a tough ask as I say....but obviously the sort of people that the runners of this world look up to.

Yep, the Catholic Mafia ... Abbott, Pyne and Hockey supported by the Christian fundamentalist Morrison. A perfect example of why we need to keep religious zealots *OUT* of government.

Dear Nhoj,

<<A "right" does NOT require "permission".>>

According to Merriam-Webster,

Right: "something that a person is or should be morally or legally allowed to have, get, or do".

According to the Oxford dictionary,

Right: "A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something".

According to the Legal dictionary,

Right: "an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition".

In the context of this thread ("Should there be guidelines for protests and demonstrations?"), we were discussing a legal question rather than a moral one or a natural one. In this context, someone or something must be providing this right, whether it be "civilized society"; a constitution; or in their absence, government/parliament - which may decree something one day and rescind it in the next.

<<as I did NOT say "no restrictions" as you falsely claim>>

You did suggest that "If any of the handful of crazy righties here want to stop protest, or place restrictions on when, where, how or why people protest ..... MOVE TO NORTH KOREA": this implies that there should be no restrictions on protest to begin with... unless what you meant was that there are some privileged people who may place restrictions on protest, as opposed to those "handful of crazy righties" who may not.

Right, Why don't I have a right to stipulate where my tax dollars go to yet the students have a right to demand by their right to disrupt ?

Foxy,

<<Imagine if we all agreed on everything.
There would be nothing left to discuss>>

Never fear, even at the height of Maoism in China there was room disagreement. They argued over who was the most politically pure--here's a glismpse of what OLO in 3014 might look like.

Paul1 1405: I am the most progressive
Nhoj: No you're not it's me.
Poirot: No No it's me I am the most faithful to Chairperson Christine.
Foxy: You are all revisionists --I'm the real progressive

The right to free speech is one of the things I consider of utmost importance to society. It follows that protest is one form of this right and should be protected. And there are many inventive ways to get one's message across.

The problem that occurs is when the protests infringe on the rights of others to protect their property, to go about their lives free of risk of assault, and to voice their own opinions. Assaulting a policeman, damaging cars or blocking trams does get attention, but costs unrelated people their property or wages simply because one sanctimonious twit considers that his opinion is more important than anyone else's.

Things are moving along quite nicely with this thread. All the predictable stuff about the "right to protest" from the 'Usual Suspects'.
To answer one of my favorite OLO contributors;

Beach, as you are a known supporter of the ultra right, I would assume in your perfect totalitarian society there would be no independent national broadcaster like the ABC, and therefore no Q&A, well not in its present form. More likely a panel of one consisting only of your man the Supreme Leader himself, to which host Beach would be "firing" the questions "Supreme Leader why are you so wonderful?" Supreme Leader would reply with a 30 minute monolog as to why he is so wonderful, then no more questions. Well as for protesters, and Tony Jones for that matter, I'm sure the cattle trucks would be kept busy shipping protesters and Tony out for resettlement.

SPQR, there is no danger of you ever becoming "progressive". unless inventing new toys for Runner to use down at the Inquisition is considered progressive.

cont

cont

Shadow, a nice little platitude there about;
<<The right to free speech is one of the things I consider of utmost importance to society. It follows that protest is one form of this right and should be protected. And there are many inventive ways to get one's message across.>> all warm and fuzzy stuff, BUT you then fall back into your old conservative way with "the problem" <<when the protests infringe on the rights of others to protect their property, to go about their lives free of risk of assault, and to voice their own opinions. Assaulting a policeman, damaging cars or blocking trams does get attention, but costs unrelated people their property or wages simply because one sanctimonious twit considers that his opinion is more important than anyone else's.>> Forget the warm and fuzzy stuff, invoke that old thorny chestnut of "law and order"! In that way ALL protests can be outlawed simply on the pretext of what might happen.
I have been to a couple of protests where the instigators of trouble have been the police themselves. 'Coppers' in general tend to be of the political right by nature, otherwise they wouldn't be coppers would they, and given a tense situation, given to confrontation with people they personally don't agree with, given the opportunity under the "law" to take action. its only natural for some coppers to want to smash a few heads. I must add the vast majority of street protests I have attended have been at times noisy, but generally peaceful.

Paul 1405, yes, we've been over this a hundred times, anyone who instigates violence at public events or who encourages violence online or in print is a cop of some sort. Socialist Alternative and the other state provocateurs are used to create the pretext for police intervention in otherwise peaceful situations, the core of the violent "students" all seem to be in their thirties and forties.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5470152-3x2-700x467.jpg
Why go to a peaceful rally wearing a mask? Answer; he's a cop, here's how it works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5RaaM3-YYk
It's the same people at the road protests, the refugee rallies etc, they work with the police, here are the "head kickers" of SA in Melbourne:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1sbvGwybH6o/USZGlo3UmKI/AAAAAAAAAHM/9Tdei7q2eTA/s1600/LEFTY+PROTESTER+WANTED+SIGN+FINISHED.jpg
Here's Anthony Main consulting with his Police colleagues at a May Day march circa 2009, he's asking them to remove as group of Anarchists with whom he had a disagreement:
http://majorityrights.com/images/uploads/Athony+Main+Anti+Fa+demanding+the+police+stop+us+marching.JPG

What's the "political right" and who are the "ultra right"?
Give us the names of the right wing leaders and ideologues in Australia?
What are the schools of thought attached to the "ultra right' and can you name their think tanks and the professional academics who staff them?
The ALP, Lib/Nats, Greens and PUP all believe in the same things, that is to say they all worship the same gods, free trade,multiculturalism/Anti Racism and political correctness in word and deed.
Liberals are not "right wing", Libertarians are not "right wing", the "Left" as personified by the Greens and ALP are just as entangled with the commercial elites and colonial nabobs as the coalition, who are these "rightists" you speak of?

Paul,

<<Beach… I would assume in your perfect totalitarian society there would be no independent national broadcaster like the ABC>>

Independent?
ROFLMAO

IMbeing vague..but it seems mainly the complaint[re the education-stuff]..is thats a specific topic[is that most commentating..'got'..as free degree/said they NEED STAY FREE/BUT AS JOES SAYS WE LOST THAT ONE[AS CHRISTPOFER SAYS..HE OWESFOR HIS LAST FEW..AND HERE AM I AN ILLITERATE TRYING TOCLARIFY FOR the illumed ones...to wise in their own eyes.

but if the topic is protesting..[methodoligy].the only thing that works is lobby/like joe loves his midday fotty/and clive likes his peace when he eats..but its getting onto the same places/p+c]or their hobby or their cliub[and politics needs play in many clubs[if only to manm the booths'

BUT IM UNSURE WHERE THIS THREAD IS TO GO
but liked what chistofer said..TO A POINT.LIKE YOUR RICH..need suport ya peers/and your teachers...tenure/and to lay ongoing claim to facility/or advantage..but in the name of truth..all state/level of education[ie the pre-state]schools..should be free/costs by federal education bond..BUT PRIVATE/ and higher ed USERS MUST PAY YOUR OWN WAY[ie no govt money at all/but to underwrite a bond.

i suspect the topic was intended more towards education/not protest[but forget prtotest/get into their networks/[lobby]..to build yoirt own cliche[once ya know what really burns their passion[sadly mostly honours/title..PEERR RECOGNITION.[respect].

Poirot

glad that you now believe in absolutes. I am not sure what basis you have to believe a lie is a lie but again bible proves true. Let every man be a liar and God be true.

A lie is when a promise turns out to be a lie.
Who believes in that crap runner. It's time the world got over that sort of nonsense and faced reality. You will forever live a lie as long as you continue to believe that rubbish.

runner,

"..."I am not sure what basis you have to believe a lie is a lie but again bible proves true. Let every man be a liar and God be true."

Hmmm...that's another toughie.

In the case of this govt, I would say it's definitely the fact that just about "everything" they said before the election turned out to be a lie.

I'd say also that all their post-election "surprises" (the one's that make their pre-election spiel almost unrecognisable) I construe as wholesale deception.

I'd add that Abbott continues to lie about his lies - as do his cohorts.

Interesting that you appear to believe that's perfectly fine because apparently you contort your beliefs to the extent that you dismiss such a shame because "every man be a liar".

It's a shame that "democracy" depends on "truth" for its operation. While it can stand a modicum of sly deception, it can't survive on a tsunami of lies.

Returning to the thread topic, the inference we are supposed to take from the OP heading is utter BS. There is no question at all that people have a right to protest. However in so doing they should not expect immunity from the laws they wilfully break.

The problem with the crazy, radical righties on this forum regarding protesting, is they are all for protesting when "their" ideology is represented in the protesting, but when their ideology is "attacked" in the protesting, the protesters suddenly become "rent a crowd" or "communists" or "a rabble" etc etc etc. It's pure comedy to witness the posts of these crazy righties ... they all uniformly conform to their brand of political correctness.

Regarding Yuyu's reply to my last post on page 6 .... thanks Yuyu for confirming, with your dictionary definitions, that a right does not always require "permission". As I said, if you want to dictate that people must get "permission" before protesting against something you support, then move to North Korea, get a government job there, and you can then impose all the restrictions you wish. You'd be happy there.

Onthebeach wrote, "they should not expect immunity from the laws they wilfully break". Ahhhhh, the old North Korean/China/Russia *EXCUSE*.

@Nhoj, Sunday, 1 June 2014 2:03:53 PM

No, the laws demanded by Australian citizens and brought into being by our democratically elected Parliament. There are other people in Australia apart from you. So you cannot expect to always do whatever you like where it affects their property, for instance.

'Interesting that you appear to believe that's perfectly fine ' No Poirot believe or not I am also disappointed that Abbott and co lied just like Julia lied. It just a sad reflection of society. Though I totally agree with the direction of the Government they did lie just as Labour does constantly.

otb,

In that case as such a big proponent of "Free Speech,"
you would have to agree that people who enjoy the rights
of free speech have a duty to repect other people's
rights. Because as you know most democratic countries
have major restrictions on free expression and a person's
freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others.
We therefore have laws to protect those rights.
And rightly so.

Now back to the topic.

Well folks, my apologies for not commenting earlier but
I had used up all of my posts - and had to wait.
Now I'm back.

I feel the need to explain a few things - some people
seem to have the wrong impression even though I thought
I had made it quite clear in my opening post that I
felt strongly about protests being a necessary and
acceptable means of expression. What I was hoping to discuss
was what the right to protest entailed. Hence the question
mark in the heading I gave this thread. For example,
people who have access to the power structure, are more
likely to work through private lobbying than through
spectacular public demonstrations. People who have little
access to power, however are more likely to create,
"news events," for they soon learn that they will otherwise
be ignored. For that reason, I feel the students on
"Q and A," took the tactic that they did. Such events
are quickly seized on by the press and in this case,
TV,
which in effect gives free publicity to the protest and
increases public awareness of its beliefs and goals.

Personally I felt that the protest had gone on a bit too
long - however they did achieve and got the attention they
were after. And I guess in this way - for them at least, it
was a success.

@onthebeach, Sunday 1 June 2014 2:16:08 PM

Yes, you display blind adherence to national law (just like Russia/China/North Korea expect from their people). My point proven by your reply.

Should people protest in support of "your" ideologies, you'd be the *FIRST* to whinge if others criticized the protest simply because it slowed a few trams, or made a driver get home 10 minutes late, or was noisy. Yes, you'd be whinging "but, but, but what about our rights to protest in a free society?".

I find that radical righties are the FIRST to criticise protests that are against "their" ideology, and the FIRST to support protests that are in "support" of their ideology. Says it all.

@Nhoj, Sunday, 1 June 2014 2:49:36 PM

That is all bunkum. You needed to pay more attention to your teacher on civics. You don't know what you don't know. Although it is probably comforting for you to make excuses for yourself to avoid self-examination, you owe it to yourself to find some facts.

Here, an informative government site that could give you some leads to do a bit of reading or attend adult education. It is fact so go for it,

http://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/

@onthebeach Sunday 1 June 2014 3:03:32 PM

Here's the "English" interpretation of your post .....

"Wa wa wa wa wa wa wa wa. I'm onthebeach and I'm having a tantrum because sexy Nhoj outdebated me. Wa wa wa wa wa".

nhoj,
How about you? Can you name the "Righties" in Australian public life?
What's their ideology called?
Which organisations operate under the banner "Right Wing"?
Who are it's intellectuals and what works have they published?
Where are their headquarters and where do they meet?
Given that all the current Christian groups, political parties, ethnic community bodies and civic associations are based on the same Liberal ideals and adhere to the same set of standards who are the people promoting a contrary position?
Could you please name the prominent Australian people who are publicly opposed to equality,universal human rights, rule of law and democracy?
Surely there must be some powerful minds and deep pockets behind this "ideology" of "rightism" for repudiating it to be of such importance to you?

Paul,

I believe you are espousing the right for protesters to be a public nuisance? You automatically blame the police for the violence, yet with cameras everywhere, and the threat of suspension or worse for cops that overstep the mark, excuse me if I view your accusation with some skepticism.

I am not advocating the banning of protests, just the punishment of those that break the law to the same extent as any other lunatic that damages property or makes a nuisance of himself.

My observations are that the left whingers are the first to try and close down the free speech of anyone with a contrary opinion.

Poor reply Jay baby. You're betrayed by your own language.

Let me educate you. The term "right wing" or "righties" does not, I repeat *NOT* (for your edification), mean anti democracy or anti liberal. You seem to be confusing Fascism with "right wing", or more likely just obfuscating for the sake of obfuscation.

Some people are more hard line right wing than others. If you don't comprehend what that means, then all the education from me won't assist you. But like I said, the likely fact is that you couldn't possibly be THAT stupid, so it's pretty safe to assume you're obfuscating merely for the sake of obfuscation (if you don't know what that word means try looking it up in a dictionary). Bye.

Nhoj,
I'm not seeking direction, I'm a long time observer of fringe politics and I want to know what you know about the "right"? In eight years of study I've never come across a real world "right wing" group in Australia but maybe you have and would like to share your experiences?
Who are they?
What are their names?
What is the name of their ideology?
In what parts of Australia are they active?
Which recent notable or newsworthy events have featured the "right"?

Bear in mind also that repeated studies by anti Racist academics in the U.S. (Chua & Xub 2006, Glaser, Dixit & Green 2002, Lees & Leets 2002) have failed to find found much less substantiate any firm link between online "Far Right" blogs and forums and real world political activism.
So according to those studies comments made online in forums, on blogs and via social media have no link to real world events and they're not indicative of a wider "movement", moreover when tested on focus groups their messages, while having an initial shock value fail to make a lasting impression on the subjects.

Butch, Hasbeen, are that far to the right they no longer have a voice . Just like Tony. Where are you going to find someone that can ever believe what he says.
After a budget based on lies it is impossible for any form of redemption. And all caused by himself.

There seems to be a contradiction here, with some claiming on the one hand that there is a legitimate right to protest, but at the same time wanting to deny that very right based on some public order concerns.
Its difficult to fathom if such concerns are genuine or do they simply want to outlaw negative protests. You cannot protest about authoritarian laws. because authority has made laws preventing protests about authoritarian laws, catch 22.

Shadow, are you saying the leopard has changed his spots. I have vivid recollections of "un-badged" coppers, ably assisted by fascists thugs violently arresting peaceful war protesters back in my younger days. Didn't seem to mind the TV cameras around then.

Evidence of government in Australia going to far. Its not the first time and its not new. In 1977, Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland announced that "the day of street marches are over", warning protesters: "Don't bother applying for a march permit. You won't get one. That's government policy now!"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/12/victorian-anti-protest-laws-passed-amid-outcry-from-public-gallery

Protests must work, you find in totalitarian regimes, anti government protests are heavily suppressed, while pro government rallies are strongly encouraged/supported. Yep, North Korea is a prime example of such, as is China.

Its called freedom of speech and freedom of movement ! As yet we are not in an absolute Police state no one has the right to stop them protesting unless they are doing something unlawful ! Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey had one thing in common when they went to University, Do you know what that was ? They both led protests against Government changes to Universities ! call it Karma !

It is sad that sometimes protests turn to out
right violence as a means of achieving their
objectives. In general, they do so only when
other channels are blocked or ineffective or
when those in positions of power use violence
to repress the protests. Unhappily, it seems
that violence can often be a successful tactic
and therefore, from the point of view of those
who espouse it, a rational one.

Of course we all would prefer peaceful protests
and demonstrations because protests are important
precisely because they deliberately intervene
in history. Their members are not content to be
the passive playthings of social forces, instead, they
try to affect the social order through direct action.
Some protests of course, have little or no impact,
but others have brought about lasting and profound
social change and cultural changes.

The world today would be utterly different had it not
been the efforts of the diverse, protests organised by
people like Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Martin Luther King,
Vaclav Havel, Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, Eddie Mabo,
to name just a few.

Foxy,
Yeah, yeah, yeah the only Australian on that list has been dead for a long time, the rest is history, who are the potential alternative Australian leaders of today?
All we see in Canberra are enemies of our people, if we threw them out who would we put in?
Australia doesn't breed great thinkers and as such we're often captivated by foreign dilettantes and adventurers so the chances of replacing the politicians we have now with anyone better are about zero.
What I want to know is why everyone is so intent on engagement with the elites and their minions, why aren't we discussing dropping out, repudiation of public service and volunteering, boycotting elections, nullifying juries, rent strikes, rate strikes, tax strikes and all the other actions an individual can take? The step between Democracy (ie mob rule, what we have now) and Republic is Anarchy, Anarchy is self rule, self control and self determination only when people can get their lives in order and establish their own rules and boundaries can they look at re establishing the rule of law.
We need the Anarch, the self ruled person at the centre of our society, not the collective, that comes afterwards.

Dear Nhoj,

<<thanks Yuyu for confirming, with your dictionary definitions, that a right does not always require "permission".>>

But in the context of THIS thread, a right does require permission.

You want to protest - go ahead and protest, but what you are doing here is asking for PERMISSION to do it, trying to convince the rest of the world that we ought to GIVE you that permission. You want US to tell you that what you are doing is right: sorry mate, if you somehow have a hunch that your actions are not right, then chances are that your conscience is telling you the truth - and truth will not change even if we tell you otherwise!

Some say we get our rights from God, others that we get them from nature, but what you want is to get your rights from society/state/government.

Sorry, but you are on your own because I don't want anything to do with your government or to receive any of their tainted gifts. I am here to live my life, which is my own, so is yours.

<<As I said, if you want to dictate that people must get "permission" before protesting against something you support, then move to North Korea,>>

It is YOU who are asking for such permissions, not I!

Hello little buddy Yuyu.

Now, after spending page after page telling you that human rights do NOT require permission, then you replying with "a right DOES require permission" .......

..... you then immediately write "It is you who is asking for such permission, not I".

Umm Yuyu, don't you realise that your last quote makes ZERO sense, taking into account your previous quote mentioned, and my stated stance of NO permissions?

Please explain your logic as to why it is I "who is asking for such permission". This ought to be good. I can hardly wait for your "explanation" .... ha ha ha.

If we want to talk about rights, I'll give the right to do anything necessary to the cops, to stop these clowns interfering with my right to go about my legal business as I please.

What we need is a big tip in the middle of the Simpson desert to dump this rubbish.

Dear Nhoj,

It's so simple:

If you want to have a right to protest, then you need permission, of whoever it is that you want to get that right from.
If you want to protest, then you need nobody's permission.

Only you can tell which of the two is more important for you - whether it is protest; or the right to protest.

Referring to your original statement:

<<The question isn't whether or not public protests work. The "real" question is whether or not people have the right to protest in the first place.>>

It seems that the latter is the case. It seems that rather than to go out and protest, what you are after is a comforting hand, stroking your hair and telling you "Yes, sweety-pie, it's alright if you protest, whatever you do in the name of protest is excusable, Mommy will still love you regardless how naughty you are".

runner it looks very much like you think abbotts lies are not as bad as gillards lie.
Typical christian hypocrite.

Last saturday I had a few drinks at our Pub with two female students in their early 20's, one from India, the other from France. When I asked what's so special about going to Uni in Australia they said it's so much easier here because they don't fail you in Australia.
Just about explains it all, doesn't it ?

protest..isnt when north koREA..DRESSES ITS PEOPLE INTO PANTOMIME AND MARCH THEM TO AND FRO..damm caps..thats not protest/but we agree Its pro=po-ganda..[pro-test..is a different beast;like often i will get arrested/just to 'test'.the poilice proceedure/or take that oppertuinity to talk to the judge..or become the mouth piece/by the standing of having suffered 'personaly'[lawfully speaking stANDING..is everything]..

I HAVE SEEN OFTEN AGETRAITORS..often radicale fringe soccer holigans local criminals/narks/stooges or under cover/i have been where they take off their police numbers/many of them in uniform arnt even cops/and finally..the militarisation/of police..becaUSE GOVTS CANt USE TROoPS TO OPPRESS ITS OWN PEOPLE

I KNOW IM RAM-BLING..BUT..damm capitals..

pro-tested..is a thing we do as opposed top pro-viding..or pro-gnost-ication..even pro's pro-fessing..the profane as if problematical propaganda..provisioning the provocateur..promiscuous PROTECTORATE prognosticator..prognosticating ..THE PROGNOSTATION.

i protest..isnt an adjective/objective..its a pejorative..to notify unto the mmm asses..the new way..the change..[simply public awareness campain/use protest to re-set..and disseminate...not decimate..but congregate-THE PEJORITIVE ACTIVELY.. hopefuly into acting professionally

its good to keep the cops on side
but to also police the actions of provataurs/the usual is to all point at the expunged..making it clear them/as sepperate from you/there lies the provocateur/your honour..just follow our point

http://rss.infowars.com/20140520_Tue_Alex.mp3

just you wait when the providers have had enough of the hang-off-the apron brigade. when the providers go on strike & protest things will change.
why can't decent citizens get the right to protest against the protesters ?

As someone who over many years has attended lots of protests, both large and small. Maybe, the 'Usual Suspects' will label me a professional protester. I can say the vast majority of protests are small peaceful affairs, not even attracting police attention. Many protests are local gatherings by no more than a few dozen locals, concerned with something in their community. Do they work, not always, but they are certainly far more effective than doing nothing.
People must be free to protest, be it attending a large public rally, or simply writing a private letter of protest to their local MP or newspaper.

LEST WE FORGET USEFULL-IDIOTS..damm caps..trolls..and renta crowd
this summer..in usa..sooner rather than later..usa going to put a tax on its people[yep the carbon tax is comming to usa/its not enough that base power supply sale/closedown..has allready..made shortages/by the media releases ya can see they need bodies in the streets saying please govt tax us more/the nerve/but watch as it unravels
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_Uncle%20Sam%20Fuck%20You%20Up.jpg

EPA to make President Obama's big move on climate change
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-epa-rule-20140601-story.html#page=1

When the Obama administration unveils its much-anticipated proposal to curb power plant emissions, this cornerstone of the president's climate change policy — the most significant environmental regulation of his term — will not be declared in a sun-bathed Rose Garden news conference or from behind the lectern in a major speech.

It will not be announced by the president at all, but instead by his head of the Environmental Protection Agency, while President Obama adds his comments in on an off-camera conference call with health advocates.

The low-key rollout from the man who once boldly predicted his election would be remembered as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and likened the climate change challenge to the U.S. space program shows just how far the president has shifted his strategy.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/bilderberg-2014-discover-the-facesdiscover-the-agenda/

ebmaster's Commentary:
http://investmentwatchblog.com/bilderberg-2014-discover-the-facesdiscover-the-agenda/

The EPA will set impossibly low carbon limits, then "fine" everyone who exceeds them, driving up consumer prices in an economy that cannot afford them, while waving "Carbon causes Global Warming" as we exit the most recent record-setting winter.

When the Obama administration declared in a sun-bathed Rose Garden news conference or from behind the lectern in a major speech.

It will not be announced by the president at all,][IN FACT..JUST FORGET..IT.]
http://12160.info/page/2649739:Page:1473615
http://investmentwatchblog.com/still-think-the-fed-isnt-fueling-inflation-check-out-this-chart/
http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/05/29/inenglish/1401376120_835701.html

A broken promise is not a lie, it's a broken promise ! A lie is when denying a fact to a question or telling something that is not true.
Politicians make promises with the intend to go through with it but then Greens go ape crap & oppositions throw a spanner in the works & then call the other a liar because they are unable to keep their promise because of the hangers-on traitors.
The best way to start rehabilitating Australia is to severely cut the public service bureaucracy & introduce a national service. No national service , no entry into the public service.

Paul,

I am commenting on today not 40 years ago. In the 70s there were far fewer cameras and far less police accountability. The short answer is that the leopard has changed its spots. Perhaps you should too.

The uni students are protesting the wrong way - on their own territory. To be effective they must take their protests to the politicians' territory. That is, marginal electorates. Then being sensible students they should give their reasons logically and quietly to the voters there. More important, they should ask the voters in those marginal electorates what those voters would like the government to do better.This will win more hearts and votes than any demonstration. Votes are the currency of democracy. Those who cannot afford to bribe political parties or politicians or are disinclined to do so, should use their ability to campaign in marginals and to vote against the offending politicians in their own seats. That is what changes policy, if necessary, by changing MPs.

Dear Residents Roundtables,

<<That is what changes policy, if necessary, by changing MPs.>>

Except that they are all members of the same cartel. Like trained professional boxers they put on a fight and snarl at each other for the camera as their day-job, then come evening they drink and toast together at the pub, joking how cleverly they managed to deceive us all.

Here's a few links that may be of some interest:

http://www.teachingheritage.nsw.edu.au/section03/timeenviron.php

http://melbourneprotests.wordpress.com/

Paul1405, "As someone who over many years has attended lots of protests, both large and small. Maybe, the 'Usual Suspects' will label me a professional protester"

Most would accept your self description. You obviously take pride in being a professional demonstrator.

There are the eminently reasonable people with a legitimate complaint and usually a workable solution who protest.

Then there are the attention-seeking serial pests who turn up everywhere to hijack legitimate protests. They are well known to police. Serial protesters boost their low self esteem through confrontation of 'authority' and frustrating or forcing decision makers to back down. For them it is all a bloody-minded game to get the power they do not see in their own unsuccessful lives.

Tony Jones and the ABC were right to reject the disorganised rabble of disruptive, bullying protesters who took advantage of the free access that applies in many public and private organisations. Their only lasting effect will be the costly security that the ABC and other public agencies will be obliged to take. See here,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/socialist-alternative-protest-sparks-qa-review/story-fna045gd-1226907504809

The public is not so easily fooled by selfish, disruptive attention-seekers like that pompously titled crew, and would believe they are treated far too leniently by Courts.

Thanks for that Foxy, a bit of nostalgia there for me. One small protest worth a extra comment. KELLY'S BUSH, in the heart of true blue Liberal Party territory. When a small group of mostly matronly Hunters Hill Liberal voting women, in their floral sun frocks, folks you would expect to be the very last to protest about anything at all. These women identified an injustice in their community, and lone behold, combined with their direct opposites, Jack Mundey's (Commo) BLF to fight what was a shocking development proposal, and WON!
People Power, does make a difference.

Shadow, if I was to change my spots, that would put me on the wrong side, and I don't want that. I like my Green spots.

Dear Paul,

I'm glad that you read the links and that they brought
back memories. I was impressed by the many protests
around the country in March - by people from all walks
of life - all illustrating the very accurate expression
of public opinion. And then of course the protests
that followed in May against the budget. Great stuff!
Here's another link:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-18/march-in-may-rallies-thousands-gather-to-protest-against-bedget/5460482

Paul,

I said "I am commenting on today not 40 years ago. ..... the leopard has changed its spots. Perhaps you should too.

Your reply:

"Shadow, if I was to change my spots, that would put me on the wrong side, and I don't want that. I like my Green spots"

The obvious retort is that you are welcome to stay in the 70s like the other Green dinosaurs.

'runner it looks very much like you think abbotts lies are not as bad as gillards lie.
Typical christian hypocrite.

yep Mikk just as bad and just as bad as your denials.

Oooops - I just realised that I made a typo in
the link I cited earlier. Here it is again:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-18/march-in-may-rallies-thousands-gather-to-protest-against-budget/5460482

Mikk wrote, "typical Christian hypocrite".

Runner replied, "Yep Mikk".

Mikk, there ya go, runner admits it.

About 2,000 protesters have marched to Parliament House in Melbourne in a show of force against new expanded police powers.

The protesters marched from Trades Hall, through the main streets of Russell and Bourke, chanting "proud to be union."

They are against the proposed new law which will allow police to move on people blocking the lawful entry to premises, causing reasonable fear of violence or danger to safety or property.

The Victorian Government says the changes protect the freedoms of people going about their lawful business.

But the Victorian Trades Hall Council Secretary Brian Boyd disagrees.

"All sorts of people, vulnerable people, anyone who's got a gripe about public policy of the day could be caught up in this law," he said.

"It's a very sad day in Victoria that we have to actually have a protest about the right to protest."

Victoria's peak employer body has welcomed the proposed new laws, saying they will help protect the fundamental rights of businesses.

"The right to freely enter one's premises is a fundamental right," said VECCI Chief executive Mark Stone

579

The pitiful handful of unionists that shuffled to Parliament house to claim their right to threaten businesses I am sure will have the impact of a wet sponge and have Napthine quaking in his boots.

Epic Fail.

The following link may help clarify matters:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-18/protesters-march-through-cbd-for-the-right-to-protest/5267190

Foxy,

Have you actually looked at the photos? 200 would be generous.

These louts are protesting not for the right to protest, but the right to maintain the right to blackmail businesses.

People have the right to withdraw their labor, not to vandalise the opposition.

With Australia becoming so right wing, it's only a matter of time till the right wing politicians give police police the powers to shoot protesters who block entrances, traffic and people. We'll be no different than Egypt. The more radical the politicians become, the more radical the protesters will be in return. Think it can't happen in Australia? Don't bet on it.

We'll be no different than Egypt.
Nhoj,
Some Australians, the likes of you are already stupid enough to be like those Egyptians.

Nhoj,
You still haven't answered my questions.
Who are the right?
Which organisations describe themselves as "right wing", which groups carry out activism or lobbying under the banner of "The right wing"?
Who are the "right wing" intellectuals and can you link to their articles or publications?

Given that politics in this country has gradually shifted to all the way over to the Left beginning in the mid 1960's and starting at the top with the Monarch It's odd that you'd say it's shifting to the right. All forms of collectivism including religion belong on the Left, who are the anti-collectivists in Australia in 2014?
I mean, the head of state supports multiculturalism, equality, minority rights, Gay rights and so forth and she's the head of the most active Left wing organisation in the world, the Church Of England, so it's not like we can call monarchists "Right wing" like they did in France in the 18th century.

My dearest Jay,

(1)"Who are the right?".... you ask "who", ok here's 5 of them: Tony Abbott, Andrew Bolt, Joe Hockey, Alan Jones, Christopher Pyne (I expect you now to argue they are "really" lefties. Don't disappoint me Jay).

(2)"Right wing organizations and lobbyists" ....Australian Taxpayers Alliance, HR Nicholls Society, Institute Of Public Affairs, Australian League Of Rights, Centre For independent Studies, Business Council Of Australia, Australia First etc etc ... the list is almost ENDLESS.

(3)"Right Wing intellectuals" ... Cory Bernardi ex chair of the Conservative Leadership Foundation http://www.conservative.org.au Alan Jones Radio 2GB http://www.2gb.com/shows/alan-jones-breakfast-show Timothy Andrews director Australian Taxpayers Alliance http://www.taxpayers.org.au/who-we-are Andrew Bolt The Bolt Report Network 10 http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-bolt-report .... the list is also almost ENDLESS.

There ya go Jay baby. ALL the information you need. I'm so glad I could educate you and provide these names for you. Are you now going to tell me that these people/organizations are *NOT* right wing? Ha ha ha .... your reply should be funny. I can hardly wait.

Foxy,
The police here have guns and batons and it is fast coming to the time where it will be necessary to use the to control these incessant and disruptive protestors.
We need a real confrontation where the full force of law and order can be brought to bare and a few of the suffer.

Chris, spoken like a true Nazi! Shadow there you go claiming the coppers have 'changed their spots'. Now on this very forum the self proclaimed ex flat foot Chris is calling for coppers to use guns and batons to "control" protesters.
By the way this is the same ex copper who on OLO claimed to have at one time thrown gays into the Parramatta River to get his jollies. Is this bloke your ideal copper?

Hey chrisgaff1000, I've often wondered why they make such a meal of getting these idiots out of trees.

They should send them down the same way they went up.

Head first.

Nhoj,
If that's your idea of "Right Wing" then people are right to laugh at you, not one of them opposes collectivism and, yes in the case of Neocons like Bolt, Bernardi etc they are 100% Left wing, there's nothing conservative about them.
So basically it's as I thought, according to your worldview the ideas which unite the right are Zionism and crony capitalism, yes that much is true but they're the fake right, they don't talk about things like liberty, individualism or self determination.
The authentic, reactionary right is Anarchy, self rule, anti collectivism, regionalism, anti globalism and so forth.
It's expressed in schools of thought such as Deep Green Ecology, Slow Food, organic horticulture, transition towns etc.
On that note take a look at Arne Næss'debating tips, how to mount an argument "right wing" style:
Avoid tendentious irrelevance
Examples: Personal attacks, claims of opponents' motivation, explaining reasons for an argument.
Avoid tendentious quoting
Quotes should not be edited regarding the subject of the debate.
Avoid tendentious ambiguity
Ambiguity can be exploited to support criticism.
Avoid tendentious use of straw men
Assigning views to the opponent that he or she does not hold.
Avoid tendentious statements of fact
Information put forward should never be untrue or incomplete, and one should not withhold relevant information.
Avoid tendentious tone of presentation
Examples: irony, sarcasm, pejoratives, exaggeration, subtle (or open) threats.[1

Hi Paul, yep the last 2 posts from the crazy righties, Chrisgaff and Hasbeen, shows that the loony righties on this forum have a *LOT* in common with authoritarian, crazy communist and fascist regimes .... and they're too uneducated to even realise it. Very, very funny indeed.

They'd make very successful thought police for Kim Jong-un. Maybe they should migrate to there as a career move.

Jay, you must be the only person in Australia who is not painfully aware of just how far 'rightwing' Cory Bernardi really is!

Look up any political sites or books on the subject and you will read 'right wing Liberal politician' whenever Cory's name is mentioned.
Are you suggesting all this information is wrong?

Maybe you need to revisit your definition of right wing politics here in Australia -
A list of right wing political parties would include:
Coalition (Australia)
Liberal Party of Australia
Liberal National Party of Queensland
Country Liberal Party
Australia First Party
Christian Democratic Party
Citizens Electoral Council
Family First Party
One Nation Party
Palmer United Party

Oh Jay, Jay, Jay ... I expected your reply to be funny, but it was utterly *HILARIOUS*. Thanks soooooooo much.

According to Jay, Andrew Bolt and Cori Bernardi and Alan Jones and Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne and Joe Hockey are ..... wait for it ...... "100% left wing, there's nothing conservative about them".

Which parallel universe are you living in Jay Of Melbourne? Do you astral travel on LSD?

Your reply made me laugh more than I have in months. I would sincerely suggest you work up an 'act' and join the comedy circuit ... you'd make an absolute $$$$$$$$ fortune.

its worth noting from the 2 hour 15 minute mark>>onwards
http://rss.infowars.com/20140602_Mon_Alex.mp3

Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis
Researchers have identified a large number of individual difference variables that play important roles in the development and maintenance of prejudice (see review in Whitley & Kite, 2010). One of the most powerful predictors of prejudice is right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). A large body of research spanning more than 60 years has shown that people who are high in RWA tend to be prejudiced against a wide variety of groups, including feminists (Duncan, Peterson, & Winter, 1997), lesbians and gay men (Whitley & Lee, 2000), Native Americans (Altemeyer, 1998), Arabs (Siegman, 1961), immigrants (Quinton, Cowan, & Watson, 1996), and the obese (Crandall, 1994). Although one of the forms of prejudice that has been most frequently studied in relation to RWA has been racial/ethnic prejudice, evidence has been mixed on the extent to which people high in RWA exhibit racial/ethnic prejudice.

Suse,Nhoj
All your "right wingers" believe in the same things as your "left wingers", there's no practical difference between the values systems of Christine Milne and Andrew Bolt.
As Irving Kristol said, a Neocon is just a Liberal who's been mugged by reality, your "right wingers" are simply more pragmatic International Socialists than your Left leaning idealists. Nevertheless, collectivism is the goal so the difference between your Left and Right is the difference between the accounts department and the creative department, a whole lot of pie in the sky ideas come down from the Lefties upstairs and the Right wing bean counters sit there and say "This is too expensive, this won't work..Aha! On this we can compromise!".
You couldn't even call it dialectical since the goals of both "sides" are the same, their conclusions about the world were reached in the 1930's.

As far as I am concerned, everyone has a right to free air to breath.

After that, everyone should have to pay their own way, & only be able to do anything, if it doesn't interfere with others. Once they step outside these requirements, anyone, criminal or protester, should be fair game for those whose lives they interfere with.

I was hoping that this subject could be discussed
without it turning into a Right/Left divide. That it
could proceed without the usual personal attacks.
I was hoping
that we could deal with facts and reasoned argument.

I along with quite a few here
firmly believe in the right of protest - what does
concern me is when the protests or demonstrations
infringe upon the rights of others. I'm all for
peaceful assembly, orderly protest and the free exchange
of ideas. I recognise that protest is a necessary and
accepted means of expression - it becomes unacceptable
(at least to me), when it obstructs the basic exchange of
ideas and or - turns violent. The use of violence,
seems self defeating - in that with the use of violence
a great deal of sympathy and support is often lost even though
it becomes a "news event."

I'm not sure about giving extra powers to the police though.
That is a concern. And I would like to see the justification
made for that not with emotions but with facts.

Nhoj, the 'Usual Suspects' have finally shown their true colors when it come to the "right to protests". They are all in favor, providing its done at end of a coppers gun! These guys were born in the wrong place at the time.

Folks, READ THE LATEST NEWS FROM JAY OF MELBOURNE.

Old Jay has just informed us in his last post that Tony Abbott, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne are .... wait for it ....... believe it or not ..... it must be true (Jay says so).........

.....They are all "INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISTS" (Jay's words).

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Nhoj,

It must be sad to be so functionally illiterate! You misinterpreted what Jay wrote and then laughed at your own incompetence.

Howard did more for the working class's living wage than any Labor PM, he just did it a different way. Socialists produce ideals, conservatives produce results.

For example Labor's carbon tax cost $11bn and reduced emissions by 0.1%.

Labor racked up spending of $2.5bn p.a. against the mining tax which raised almost nothing,

Labor's NBN by the end of 2013 had spent about 25% of the budget and was about 5% complete.

Labor scrapped the pacific solution against the advice of all the experts and cost the country more than $10bn and over 1200 dead.

etc, etc, etc.

A conservative is a practical socialist, and a socialist is an incompetent conservative.

OH MY GAWD ... it get funnier by the minute. Even Shadow Minister now claims to be a socialist lover. Ha ha ha.

The radical righties here are soooooooooo ashamed of their hero ToneLIAR, that they are now claiming that their rightie heroes like Andrew Bolt, John Howard, ToneLIAR, Alan Jones are *SOCIALISTS*.

I haven't laughed so much in years. This is funnier than watching John Cleese.

Debating with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. He simply craps on the board, and struts around as though he owns it.

.1% what a load of crap. More than 2 million properties with solar, and power generators saying they are battling to break even.
Abbott is in the business of closing down the growth of solar, so generators can survive. You know pay for an ear, works wonders.

Abbott wants to shut down something that makes no money, so why is there opposition to that.

The NBN won't be worth having, so they may as well have scrapped it.

579,

Even labor does not dispute the 0.1% decrease.

Climate Connect News, 9 December 2013, London: Data to be released by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory this week is expected to reveal that Australia’s carbon emissions reduced by less than 0.1% in the first year of carbon tax from July 2012 to June 2013, according to the media reports. Before the carbon tax was introduced, Australia’s emissions were about 546.2 million tonnes which are now expected to have reduced to 545.9 million tonnes. Hence, the carbon tax cut emissions by 300,000 tonnes in its first year.....

The NBN under labor was a complete cock up. The costs were far higher, the installation was less than half the planned speed, the take up was only a fraction budgeted, and other technologies are starting to make FTTH redundant. A typical Labor thought bubble project.

Foxy, I do so admire your persistence with attempting a dialogue on this forum. Whenever I log in on occasion I see that the 'usual suspects' as Paul calls them are all still here and still dribbling the same drivel. It's so boring not to get an articulate response as to why a viewpoint is incorrect.

Are you all really that against civilians protesting against actions by a government? Isn't the freedom to do that one of the tenets of a free democratic society? To automatically blame any violence on protesters alone is such a limited view of why sometimes clashes do occur.

And another thing. What is it with the strident anti tertiary education rhetoric that never fails to pop up in this forum? How did you buy into cultivating this cultural bias in our, for the moment still, egalitarian society? Tony and his henchmen are all university graduates, largely freely provided by the taxpayers.

I personally enjoyed the protest on Q&A. It was good to see Jones at a loss and good to see uni students protesting

Yvonne, the problem with Foxy's reasoned, factual and well mannered approach is that on "this" forum it doesn't work. They STILL try to abuse and degrade her on a daily basis.

I registered here several years ago and quickly realised reasoned debate here was useless, so I didn't bother returning till just a month or two ago. I noticed those "usual suspects" were still here, and still abusing people who didn't agree with them.

So I decided to adopt their approach but go TWICE as hard as they do, via sarcasm. "Reasoned" debate with them is impossible. So it's basically now just amusement for me when I come here.

The "usual suspects" like Hasbeen, individual, rehctub, runner, UOG, Shadow Minister ..... there's only a handful of them here. They are the reason why almost all the other 22 million people in Australia stay AWAY from this forum.

The "usual suspects" have even formed a forum anti immigration "alliance" with Ludwig, in which Ludwig (because he is anti immigration on "sustainability" grounds)) NEVER criticizes their racist/cultural motivations for being anti immigration. It's weird.

But Foxy battles on with reasoned posts against the handful of radicals here, despite the abuse she receives from them. She deserves a medal.

Nhoj, I registered quite a number of years ago. There were a number of women commenting then. Foxy came after most of them had already left. I stopped shortly after it was suggested I might stop being such a do-gooder feminist bitch when I was raped by a Muslim. I've just logged on to see what the right wingers had to say about this budget. Not much I notice.
I suspect quite a number of them will be affected to a greater or lesser degree. I doubt very much anybody here will be hit by the ridiculous little temporary levy for the high income earners-we will by the way. But we will hardly feel it. Our young adult kids, though will feel the brunt of the changes down the line, as will their children.
Abbott and his disgusting cabinet wants to make people like our kids phenomenally lucky, not because they are smart, but because they have us as parents. It is un-Australian. There, I said it. This cabinet is treasonous to all the values of this nation.

yvonne,..FOXIE AND LEXIE ARE synonomous....YOU MUST RECALL LEXIE AND THE PIPER FROM THE OLDEN DAYS[OR NOT]..my days of protest ear the end..[im getting too angry repeating the same things top the same closed minds/too many are paid to blog..[or if not paid'..recieve too much of a thrill in winning/regardless of the truth of falsity..[i recall too the newest member[john spelled backwards]..i recall an earlier post where he was astounded he hadnt been banned/yet..anyhow im witting as people were writing when i first came here/like we had to save on the printer-ink...[anyhow]..many new members that like you lift the level/of the de-bait..simply by your normal civilities[we miss belly starting his corny posts/he left because others hounded/him]we even got a few passed over..and some great leaving thoughts..[ANYHOW..ITS BEEN FUN]..GOTTA RUN.

Paul1405,
At least we kept you and your mate in check.
Perhaps you might like to let the readers know your record..or would you prefer me to do so on your behalf.

Dear Yvonne and Nhoj,

Thank You both for your kind words.

There are many posters on this forum who I admire,
posters who I may not always agree with but who do
contribute well-reasoned arguments and give us all
food for thought. I won't mention them by name because
I don't want to leave anyone out. However, I enjoy this
forum. I'm still learning from it and as long as I continue
to enjoy it, I'll stay. Of course
there are many posters who are no longer with us
and are greatly missed. Still I'm glad when people such as
yourselves do come back and contribute. It makes things
more interesting. Welcome back to both of you and I hope that
you will stay for longer this time.

Dear Yvonne,

<<I personally enjoyed the protest on Q&A. It was good to see Jones at a loss and good to see uni students protesting>>

Yes, it's such a great fun to see the fat man fall and bleed!
Doesn't it put a smile on our face to see the underdog tie the tail of the topdog?

There are people who actually enjoy watching James Bond leaving a trail of destruction behind him. Usually, those are not the ones who've got to get up the next morning and clean the mess.

The Romans enjoyed watching gladiators fighting each other to death - occasionally it even allowed them to forget their hunger.

Does our personal enjoyment justify the blood (even if it's blue)?

Nowadays there is an abundance of violent computer games. While I can't recommend them, at least no real persons are hurt - so why not get and enjoy those instead?

AGENT PROVOCATEURS! After highlighting the way in which police are prone to attack peaceful demonstrators based on their own conservative predigests which they harbor towards these people, and the causes they espouse. Likewise police are prone to install agent provocateurs within demonstrations to ferment trouble and therefore create the "justification" to take heavy handed action.
Protests directed towards private companies can also cause the infiltration of company agents within the demonstration to create am environment of confrontation with the aim of disrupting the demonstration wherever possible. Often these agent provocateurs work hand in glove with the police to break up peaceful protests. An example of this type of action was reported in today's SMH where the mining company Idemitsu Australia Resources admitted it had agents infiltrate protesters opposed to its expansion of coal mining operations in Northern NSW.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/idemitsu-admits-it-hired-contractors-in-coal-spies-operation-20140602-39esi.html

Yvonne,

"I personally enjoyed the protest on Q&A. It was good to see Jones at a loss and good to see uni students protesting"

Yup...me too. As I mentioned earlier, everyone in the house jumped up and started dancing along . Also as I mentioned earlier, it was only for a few minutes. The ABC cut away to someone singing and when we came back Tony Jones was his usual self-satisfied self with only a wisp of fume emanating from his ears...no harm done..and a huge raspberry to this lying rabble of a govt.

Yuyutsu,

"Yes, it's such a great fun to see the fat man fall and bleed!
Doesn't it put a smile on our face to see the underdog tie the tail of the topdog?"

What a load of tripe.

This govt gets itself elected with a tsunami of lies and few kids pipe up to protest. Should we not say a word when we're lied to wholesale? Should we just sit back and watch our democratic values abused by a mob of rabid right-wing liars?

You might enjoy being deceived on this level...some of us resent it big time.

And the govt hasn't heard the last of it.

(Hiya, Foxy, Paul and nhoj...would be here more often, but find lots of like-minded folk on twitter)

Dear Poirot,

<<This govt gets itself elected with a tsunami of lies>>

But of course - every government does, it's always been so, it's their nature!
The whole concept of government, of some people ordering others what to do and what not, is absurd.

Anyway, my last post was not about government or about students, it was about people who take pleasure in the fall of others.

Dear Poirot,

Always a pleasure to read your posts.
You're one of the contributors to this forum - who keeps
me coming back (need more like you).

Yuyu wrote regarding pre election lies, "But of course, every government does, it's always been so".

Yuyu, Poirot's point was *NOT* that all governments lie before an election. Her point was *NOT* that THIS specific government lied before the election. Her point was that this government inflicted upon voters a "tsunami" of lies.

NOT just "one" lie like the previous government, but a *TSUNAMI* of lies.

Not just several lies like all governments, but a *TSUNAMI* of lies.

If you don't comprehend the context of Poirot's use of *TSUNAMI*, maybe you should contact a qualified English comprehension teacher, who will happily educate you on the matter.

ToneLIAR'S government has been the biggest lying government in Australia's history. The voters were defrauded by a *TSUNAMI* of pre election lies from ToneLIAR.

Yuyutsu,

"But of course - every government does, it's always been so, it's their nature!"

Oh...so you think "every govt" has produced the sort of wholesale deception that got this one elected?

Really?

Hmmmm....

Nhoj,

Juliar did not only make one lie, but many lies, the one she is remembered for is her iron clad guarantee that there would be no carbon tax which was backed up by Swan.

Other lies were the East Timor lie, the Surplus lie, the lie to Wilke etc etc. In fact I cannot think of one promise that she kept. The reason she was called Juliar is that she never told the truth.

Dear Poirot,

I don't find it interesting to stand with a tape-measure and tell exactly which nose is longer: perhaps one government's nose could be a kilometre and five millimetres while the other is only one kilometre and four millimetres long.

I a democracy, the very existence of government requires it to deceive the ordinary voter to the effect of telling them that it cares, that it does (or will do) what it does for their own good, for our own well-being.

None could be further from the truth - government is a predator, a parasite and politicians are there to serve their own interests alone. By their nature they harass and oppress every ordinary men, woman and child. So the moment they mention, for example, the term 'nation' (a fabrication which doesn't exist in reality) or even 'in the nation's interest', you can clearly see their nose growing.

To believe them in the first place, one needs to have a wooden head!

THERE ARE SOME INTERSTING GAMES IN PLAY
to try to awaken/the handbag brigade[see greenies want the c02 tax]
but tony cant stop his oath to get rid of it..[so they need get turnbull into cloven clive and feed him some selective info/on his naturally biased side

no doudt turncoat put that woman..into clives mind
why[so the greenie musoginist new world order can install its carbon taxes world wide]

just so ya know how the play goes
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16376&page=0

the big picture cause i know how your instictivlywanting to do whats right.

the hard press is get rid of tony/install the 'left'/wing banker STOOGE/TO finish the plunder and 'keep'..the juliar CARBON TRAITERING tax..plus some extras..[they espoecialy want to trade it/bid up an ever shorter supply of lawfull 'carbon dispensatory polution

capitalists solution
reducing polution/creates rareity/you cant burn a few sicks you found..on the ground/burning leaves penalty unit fine =one carbon credit/current price is 5000 duetchmarks[enron esq p[ricing

remember if we [govt]..do nuthing
fuel gets carbon taxed..in july[15?]..[its/a done deal by juliar
unless tony cancells the law/but\if turnbull the cobalist banker..get in/the tax stays*..yeah..just as juliar wrote it/by order or her handler/the hairdressor...wife.

but see you clever ones..now getting 55 cents per kilo-what?
when its one dollar ten..a kilo-what..you e like us...then..

the idea is to tripple the price of energy
double what you collusionist greenies get paid today
hyper inflation begins this year/by the end of next year a loaf of bread will COST 20 dollars/but your 55 cent rebait isdnt indexed/but by then we are all dead.[see the plenty-gone [pentagram/pentagon]link]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16376&page=0
http://rss.infowars.com/20140603_Tue_Alex.mp3

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to this
discussion. It's certainly been robust.

I look forward to seeing you all on another thread.

Cheers.