'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?