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.