For Non- Australian viewers Four Corners is a very well respected program and here they are investigating how the current system in WA is responding to climate change protestors At the heart of this is the right to free speech
Are they blocking traffic in the street like a bunch of morons? If so they don't deserve an ounce of any sympathy
At the end of the first video, she is talking about resorting to violence if peaceful protest isn't working. These people deserve what they get. They are a future Weather Underground waiting to happen. They aren't protesters, they are eco-terrorists....
They were sitting in a car outside the home of an oil and gas CEO with paint and other materials they were going to use. They even filmed a trial run the day before. Again, that is not free speech, it is eco-terrorism. These people are no different than the idiots that superglue themselves to priceless works of art or the geniuses that glue themselves to the road. And they don't have the sense to see that nothing will come of it. You won't change anything, and the outcome will either be your death (in the case of violence) or at a minimum, incarceration...
So glad I don't have to put up with that crap where I live. The farmers, truckers, and oilfield workers WILL run your dumb ass over....
I think what we need is clearly defined rules on protest that aren't dependant on what's being protested for/against. As it is we seem to jump between "permissible protest" and "slam their heads against the ground" depending on which day of the week it is. A lot of this comes back to us not having any sort of hard and fast rule about what the line is for criminal speech. The US, for all its faults, is pretty simple: any speech which advocates for imminent lawless action (ie: go here and kill this person now) is illegal. There are other areas of exception to that (defamation law, etc), but those areas aren't relevant to this discussion. This means that whenever an issue of speech comes up it's sort of a free for all in Australia. The "vibe" is the crucial factor, and it changes on a daily basis. Nobody knows what the permissible limits are, because they deliberately change with every issue.
That is because we do not have a “free speech” clause. There is considerable case law and in this case I think I agree with the law prof interviewed by Media Matters that a lot of this is being driven by a hypersensitive CEO with undue influence on the WA government
Bunkum! At most it was vandalism. Mate I date back to the flower power revolution and people chaining themselves to trees
People engaging in criminal activities will get no sympathy for their cause. If they want to act like morons then that is the way they will be treated.
As I understand it, they were targetting an individual at their home and it appears they were intent on vandalism. A jury should have the final say of course (unless they happen to admit their intent) but it seems they were preparing to commit crime. Not just protest. Now, if part of what they're 'protesting' is it being illegal to harass people at their home and vandalize property, then that would make them consciensious objectors who are committing crimes with the intent of exposing the injustice of those acts being criminalized. But part of consciensious objectionism is martyring oneself to the consequences of breaking the law in order to illicit public support in changing the law. I don't think anyone is interested in making it legal to harass people at their home and vandalize their property ...even the bad evil oil CEOs.
Maybe, irrespective of how permissive or prohibitive it is, we should have some sort of clear, unambiguous line on freedom of expression so people know where the line is. It would certainly make things a lot more simple, and make things easier for people with good intentions, and draw a line in the sand for those with malintent. That doesn't necessarily need to be a bill of rights or constitutional amendment. As it is, I'm genuinely not sure if I can be arrested or not for quietly standing around holding a sign that says "everyone calm down and get along with each other". It seems either I'm off scott free, or I'm going to jail, entirely dependant on what other people are doing around me holding that sign. It's also unclear what the legal consequences are for doing journalism at such events. We don't know until the police throw you in a paddy wagon. Maybe a press credential will get you off, maybe not. If you're a freelance or independent journalist you likely don't have a press credential and so are simply ****ed in such situations. So again, I think we need some clarity over this. Case law is neat and all, but it is inferior to statutory law (statutory law supersedes case law), and statutory law should be used in situations like this to provide people with clarity and certainty in difficult situations. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but most people don't have weeks to research the nuances of 100 years of case law. If the state wants to claim ignorance of the law is not an excuse then they have a responsibility to make it reasonably decipherable by the common man. PS: Despite not being on the left, I have been disturbed by the response to some of your protests. This is not really a left or right issue, we both want our voices heard and violent people arrested (well, most of us...)
