Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (50)
Free speech is now a very amorphous object. Like ‘racism’ it can now mean whatever you want it to mean. But, essentially it means that, except in extreme circumstances, one cannot suffer adverse personal consequences for expressing one’s genuinely held beliefs. Generally, this would mean you cannot be prosecuted for expressing an opinion that the government does not like. But free speech does have consequences. It can cost you friends or family members. It can cost your business, if potential customers choose to stay away. It can limit your opportunities for employment. You cannot be protected against these consequences.
It also has another price, as we are discovering. It is now commonly accepted that the right to protest is an extension of free speech. But protests come with a financial cost. NSW Premier Chris Minns has revealed that policing a major protest can cost up to $1 million. What is the current bill for the many Pro-Palestinian protests that have already occurred? And how much more will we rack up before state governments say, ‘enough is enough’?
There have been more than six major rallies in Melbourne alone. According to The Australian on 19 November:
Thousands of pro-Palestinian supporters have gathered for the sixth Sunday in a row at the State Library of Victoria in Melbourne’s CBD.
Free Palestine Melbourne, the organisers of the protest, issued a call out on social media this week to “make this the biggest Palestine rally in Australia’s history”.
Protesters were seen holding signs that read “Stop the genocide, ceasefire now” and “End the apartheid”.
A few people are also handing out free signs that read “How many dead children is too many?”
There is a heavy police presence at the demonstration.
And further:
Organisers say 30,000 people attended the pro-Palestine rally in Hyde Park Sydney today according to the Guardian.
The Daily Telegraph reported a strong police presence.
Rallies were held across the capitals demanding a cease-fire in the conflict.
In Adelaide, rallies have been held every fortnight since the conflict increased.
Hundreds gathered for the rally in Brisbane, with signs calling to end Israel’s “siege” of Gaza.
Protests are more than just an expression of free speech. They are also political action. They are designed to pressure – even to intimidate – governments to act in a certain way. They attempt to circumvent the Parliamentary process. The website of the Australian Attorney-General’s Office tells us:
The right to peaceful assembly protects the right of individuals and groups to meet and to engage in peaceful protest.
This right does not exist in the Constitution or the common law. In Australia, it is given force by international covenants to which we are signatory. Also, from the AG website:
Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The right to freedom of assembly and association is contained in articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 8(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
And that is a good thing. Citizens should have the right to directly petition the government in this manner if they believe normal representations through their elected representatives will not be effective. But how inviolable is this right? It cannot be absolute. The AG website tells us:
Derogation: Under article 4 of the ICCPR, countries may take measures derogating from certain of their obligations under the Covenant, including the right to freedom of assembly and association ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed’. Such measures may only be taken ‘to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin’.
Limitation: In addition, under article 21 freedom of assembly may be subject to restrictions imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 22(2) makes similar provision in relation to freedom of association.
In all cases, restrictions must be provided for by legislation (or imposed in conformity with legislation), must be necessary to achieve the desired purpose and must be proportionate to the need on which the limitation is based. The phrase ‘necessary in a democratic society’ incorporates the notion of proportionality.
I would argue that, in a practical sense, such inviolability as the right to protest possesses is limited by the extent to which a protest is designed to protect the rights and interests of Australian citizens from the actions or inactions of an Australian government. In other words, it must relate to an issue that is within the power of an Australian government to redress. And protests must be proportionate. Their purpose is to send a message to government. Not to punish it, and by extension the Australian people. We punish governments at the ballot box.
These pro-Palestinian protests relate to matters which are outside the power of the Australian government. Certainly, the government could accede to demands to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, to recognize Palestine, to condemn Israel and so forth. But none of these measures would have the slightest effect in the Middle East. Israel is fighting for its very survival. And they would be anathema to the majority of Australians.
I estimate rule-of-thumb that these protests have now cost the Australian taxpayer in excess of $20 million. They do not represent the genuine interests of Australian taxpayers. They are nothing more than grotesque and self-indulgent street theatre. And dangerously divisive at that. But it’s not just the offence to, and intimidation of, our Jewish community that is problematic. Encouraged by hate preachers and emboldened by useful idiots from our Marcuse-corrupted institutions, these protestors seem determined to entrench themselves as a despised minority in a country that has given them a home. That is a recipe for disaster. These protests are not an expression of differing political opinion but a flaunting of values that are inimical to those upon which Australia was built. They are effectively a declaration of war on the West and its values. Many Australians will be asking themselves ‘just how fringe is this fringe group of extremist Muslims?’
Even our feckless Labor ministers, such as Tony Burke and Clare O’Neil, are starting to recognize the problem. And at the time of writing, NSW Premier Minns has vowed to stop the vigilante convoys, like the one which emerged from the Islamic enclave of the western suburbs to provocatively cruise the heavily Jewish eastern surburbs with Hamas flags flying alleged abuse of residents (“alleged’ because the incident has produced charges and the matter is before the courts). Good on Minns, but that needs to be just the start.
It should not be beyond the wit of a National Cabinet, called for by Peter Dutton, to devise a national approach, based on Article 21 (described above), to call a halt to all these protests. They have been indulged far too long.
And on a more practical note, why should the free speech of protestors impose a financial burden on taxpayers, rather than on the protest organisers? What you say may be protected, but the way you say it should not be immune from consequences. If your peaceful protest against, say, the oppression of Uighurs or the invasion of Ukraine comes at no cost, either financially or to the fabric of the nation, then of course, as an exercise of free speech, it must be protected.
If state governments do not have the intestinal fortitude to stop these protests, they should at least bill the organisers for the police protection that they (the governments) deem essential, as they did the organisers of CPAC in 2022.
As I have said in an earlier article, vis a vis free speech, the role of government is to uphold it. Not to roll out the red carpet for it, especially in its more noxious manifestations.
Well said. Same goes for the so-called ‘environmental’ protestors who are using tendentious politicized science-speak as propaganda to injure ordinary people, legal businesses and people’s means of making a living. Economic sabotage hiding a desire for return to Rousseau’s fanciful stone-age.
Public protest has taken place since monarchy was established, moreover it tends to occur less violently where it is tolerated. Better that people march and waive placards, shout their insults or slogans then go home and feel like they have achieved something, than prevent them, where upon they stay home have clandestine meetings and build bombs.
I don’t understand how the protests can ‘cost’ money. The police are employed full-time on a fixed-salary. If they weren’t there, they would be elsewhere. I’m afraid Mr O’Brien is on the wrong track with this attitude: the idea of people having to pay for policing at all is unfair. The ‘cost’ of the protests is beside the point.
The photo at the top is very revealing because none of these young girls know anything about the conflict. It has become a Lefty fashion statement.
Fortunately they are not only on the wrong side but also on a side that has little to recommend it to conservatives or any sensible person.
That means Conservatives can’t just completely surrender on this issue. Hopefully it will help them rediscover the fact that they don’t have to surrender on other issues.
I wouldn’t ban any mass expression of opinion; I don’t think – however obnoxious to civilised western values. But I do think laws should be upheld. Unless a permit is obtained, people should be moved on or arrested if they are blocking roads; as I would be as an individual, if I sat in the middle of a highway. They should be preventing from intimidating passersby or residents in the vicinity or anyone; as I would be prevented, if I went up to someone in a threatening manner. They should not be allowed to gee up other people to threaten the life and limb of any individual or group; as I would be disallowed from carrying a sign or shouting slogans which encourage the harming of a particular person or group of people.
We have in our midst a community of people who don’t share our values. Free speech is one of our values. We can’t let them intimidate us into compromising our values. What to do? Don’t let any more such people in so far as we are able. Try to expel those who are not citizens. Otherwise, insist that our peerless values are reinforced in schools; all schools in receipt of any government funding. All schools! Insist that values inimical to our values are not taught. Again, in all schools. I might have mentioned universities; but they, along with most of the media, are a lost cause.
Peter Smith, I agree completely with you. Wise words.
.
And remember, we vote and can influence government policies on immigration etc.
.
In the end that’s our most powerful weapon against these ugly spectacles.
Obvious for a long time to so many in Western countries of the problems of allowing immigration from Islamic countries. Incompatible values with Western democracies. A theocracy – rule by God – Allah
In Australia the ongoing street protests seems to have finally awakened the public and to some extent, the MSM. Not rocket science what to do. End Islamic immigration. For muslims here, monitor mosques, strengthen laws to deport dual citizens who break laws and spit in our face. End the never ending appeal process which taxpayers fund
But what are ‘our’ values these days? This is really problematic. Certainly ‘our values’ are no longer what have historically been regarded as shared values, such as monogamy, and fidelity in marriage. Is freedom of speech still a shared value? My impression is that many people would support censoring ‘misinformation’, and would find deplatforming of ‘far right’ speakers (i.e. conservatives like us) perfectly acceptable, if not positively desirable. Many people are opposed to teaching Christian religious education in schools precisely because they think it does not reflect ‘our values’ as a society. So if you want ‘our values’ taught in all schools, there may be a problem defining exactly what they are. Perhaps this is a debate worth having, although I fear the result may simply show that ‘our values’ are no longer what we think (or hope) they are.
PS VERY WISE WORDS INDEED
This problem wouldn’t exist at all if we didn’t have an insane immigration policy. Because of the successive governments having created the factional disharmony we see on the streets and other public venues, we appear now to be stuck with it. I do think that the pro-Israel/pro Zionist supporters are over-inflating the issue, such as interpreting an anti-Israel expression as being a call for genocide. For example, the girl in the photo above wearing the placard depicting an item with an Israeli flag being dropped into a rubbish bin; is she a Jew-hating Nazi advocating for a holocaust scenario?
Whether or not, she is certainly giving the impression that she is.
“I do think that the pro-Israel/pro Zionist supporters are over-inflating the issue, such as interpreting an anti-Israel expression as being a call for genocide.”
Do you think the rubbish bin cartoon means junk the country of Israel, not junk the Jews of Israel? How would that be done – how to rid the world of the Israeli vermin without removing those Jews? Please interpret it for us.
I think we can read that as: Israel is rubbish or Israel should be put in the rubbish bin. Neither is inciting genocide, although the second is calling, forlornly I should think, for the return of Palestine to Muslim control, as was somewhat ambiguously promised by Britain a century ago. Although not genocide it would obviously involve a mass migration of several million very reluctant people. Israel has an extensive array of nuclear weapons so the rubbish bin option is really wishful thinking on our protestrix’s part. These people would settle for a viable two state solution but the more likely outcome at this point is the total absorption of Gaza and the West Bank and millions of refugees, possibly headed to Britain which is apparently to blame for this, along with everything else.
You conveniently ignore the words “keep the world clean”, but then again you’ve made it pretty clear that you indeed regard Jews as vermin.
That’s uncharitable and untrue. I was going off Mr Battle’s description and was unaware of the text which is quite faint, but having now read it I would still say the protestrix is calling for Israel to be binned, not an end to Jews, I am quite confident similar sentiments must have been expressed by Jews in Israel and elsewhere regarding Gaza.
Quite possibly. But at the very least she’s an ignorant jew-baiter.
They’re more transparent than they think they are.
Katzenjammer: My response to your request: “Do you think the rubbish bin cartoon means junk the country of Israel, not junk the Jews of Israel? How would that be done – how to rid the world of the Israeli vermin without removing those Jews? Please interpret it for us.”
My impression, now that the photo has been brought to my attention by SKY NEWS and Quadrant, is that the girl is expressing an anti-Zionist opinion, not an anti-Jewish sentiment. She could possibly even be “Jewish” of some description, as there are “Jews” in Australia that have a very anti-Zionist platform. Ardent Zionists would describe them as “self-loathing Jews”. As to how the Zionist Israeli state can be dismantled without harming Jews, I’ll have to get back to you on that one! Perhaps it could be said that, “If there is a will, there is a way”. If there was global progress towards the creation of a secular Palestine, to embrace all the peoples that identify it as their homeland, that might herald a whole new future for humanity! Such a progression would be accompanied by the sound of John Lennon’s “Imagine”. Yes, you may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one!
That’s all – just imagine, like daydreams. That’s one way to sneak out the side door when no-one is watching – – – but they are.
Well, as we are soon to decriminalise cannabis and a number of other substances, getting “High” will make it so much easier to imagine a world where we “live as one”, as JL sang.
given that Israel exists as somewhere for Jews to run to when they are persecuted, *yes*, hatred of Israel is a desire to exterminate the Jews.
Israel has already been needed to prevent *three* new Holocausts that I am aware of – across the Islamic world during the 50s and 60s, from the Russian Gulags, and then from ISIS.
Israel exists as the re-established sovereign state of Jews, and therefore is a refuge for any persecuted Jew. But the reason for Israel’s existence is not as a refuge. If no Jew ever required refuge, Israel would still be the rightful sovereign Jewish state.
You might be carrying a can of worms while walking into a mine-field there, Katzenjammer! Just how are we to proceed, on an equitable basis, to assign “rightful sovereign” statehood of peoples, based on ancient history? What is the extent of the rightful sovereign Persian state, or the rightful sovereign Roman state, or Egyptian or Greek or Turkish, etc, etc, etc? Oh, did I forget Russia? And, do converts to Judaism automatically inherit the right to return to their “homeland”?
Malka Leifer certainly made good use of this haven from persecution, without which she might have had to face prosecution fourteen years earlier.
November 29, 2023
I usually enjoy and agree with Peter O’Brien’s pieces, but in this case it sets off large warning bells. Once we start saying that THIS protest is okay but THAT one isn’t, we open a huge and very dangerous can of worms. Heavily regulating–or even banning–protests that I despise, like these pro-Palestinian ones or the nutty greenie ones, could so easily lead to banning ones with which I mainly agree–say anti-mandate, pro-freedom rallies. Some of the latter, here and overseas, created inconvenience for those around them; and they were certainly against what we were told were “our” values. That was, of course, a lie; but values and culture are, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. I also believe that women in Iran should be permitted to protest, despite that fact that such action is completely against the “values” of that country.
In my opinion, Peter Smith summed up the issue far better in his comment than Mr. O’Brien (for whose work I am, in general, extremely grateful) did in this whole article.
I especially like the point that we are giving in TO the Palestinian/Moslem mentality if we infringe on free speech. It is kind of like the fact that terrorists win when they get us to alter our behaviour out of concerns for safety.
I’ve been surprised, baffled and saddened from what we’ve seen on our streets. In my naivety I had no idea we’d come to this. I should qualify that. We haven’t come to this – a minority has. But a minority larger than I’d imagined.
.
Charging demonstrators for police time might seem fair when others have had to pay. And banning these ugly protests from our fair streets might also initially appeal. But it could give the protestors the excuse to cry their free speech is being stifled. It could even add a degree of legitimacy to the protests themselves.
.
However we should certainly be prosecuting those who incite hatred and arguably even murder with chants like “gas the Jews”. That ought to carry a big penalty. Security camera footage should be used to track the perpetrators down and charge them. It’s arguably far worse than simply offensive behaviour.
.
But these protests also have an educational aspect to them. The confidence of numbers on the street has led protesters to drop their guard and say things which probably express their true feelings that they’d usually, during more normal times, be careful to avoid saying in public.
.
Things that are likely to be very damaging to their cause with voters in general. Like signs suggesting Jews are rubbish and of course very publicly chanting ” gas the Jews”.
.
Like one 16 year old demonstrator in Melbourne saying to a reporter from The Australian that Hamas are doing a good job. When more savvy political operators and people posting here might hold that view but imply they don’t support Hamas or deny they do outright. That they only support the Palestinian people. Yet of course Hamas was elected to govern Gaza by the Palestinian people in the 2006 elections, supervised by the UN. And Hamas hasn’t changed much since then.
.
And they now widely and publicly use the slogan: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” which is arguably urging the complete destruction of Israel, not some peaceful solution. It gives them away.
.
The very timing of the initial demonstration also gives the Palestinian supporters away. It occurred immediately after the inhuman terrorist atrocities carried out by the Hamas Palestinian government in Israel before Israel had responded.
.
They couldn’t be demonstrating for a ceasefire or peace then. Israel had not responded then. The timing tells you that. The only conclusion you can come to is they were demonstrating in support of what had just happened, especially those very publicly chanting “gas the Jews”. You can be reasonably sure Hamas would have thought they had the protesters’ support for their inhuman atrocities.
.
Those people who protested then in demonstrations and postings online have shown me who they really are. They disgust me. And I realise there’s no point in debating with people like that. Our values are totally incompatible. They provide no common basis for debate.
.
Then we have left leaning “journalists” now confident enough to express their values publicly for all to see in the letter from the journalist Union which asserts the same level of credibility should be afforded Hamas, a terrorist organisation, as is afforded the Israeli democracy.
.
When normally these values would have been hidden but still influenced articles written by journalists who shared them. The ” journalists” involved outed themselves with that letter. They gave themselves away.
.
But there’s some good news I feel. All these ugly happenings I think have influenced recent polling. Arguably there’s evidence of a voter backlash against Labor’s equivocation, lack of leadership and unity in dealing with the war and the ugly protests. It could even cost Labor government when their very poor performance on the economy hadn’t looked like doing that.
.
It could be why some in Labor are now starting to wind back their views from previous more pro Palestinian positions. They would be well be aware of public polling and probably their own internal polling on these issues.
The point of may article is that protests are more than an expression of free speech – with which I fervently agree. They are also political action which comes at a cost. In the case of these pro-palestinian protests, they are coming at a huge cost. Yes we can regard the cost of police as a sunk cost but they could be better employed elsewhere, or if not we could reduce their numbers. My point is that protests that are aimed at influencing government action or inaction, where it directly impacts on Australian citizens, are certainly protected. But these demands do not fall into this category. There is nothing any Australian government can do to ‘free Palestine’ or ‘stop the genocide’ or impose a ceasefire, no matter how often these demands are repeated. Australian taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for this self-indulgence. By all means, let the marches go ahead, without the heavy police presence and see where that leads.
Thanks for your article Peter. We need Quadrant on this issue.
.
Ideally I’d like to see the ugly protests pay for their own policing. But it’s a fairly minor point in the scheme of things. Not really worth the effort of pushing to my mind. It should be compulsory for police to publicly state the costs involved though. So people know another damaging aspect of the demonstrations.
.
Ideally I would have hoped that out fair streets weren’t filled with these ugly protests at all, especially the ones where anti Semitic chants and expressions are used. But as you say free speech is one of our important values. Within limits.
.
And anti Semitic expressions seem fairly widely used, ironically by those on the left who always like to play the racist card. It seems to the left anti Semitism is the acceptable form of racism. Their hypocrisy on this issue has been astonishing.
.
I’d like to see a lot less equivocation from the Labor government on the clearly divisive and hateful nature of the form of protest being used by many at these protests.
.
The Dutton opposition should continue to draw our attention to Labor’s equivocation. Peter Dutton has been doing a pretty good job on this issue though. But the opposition could get tougher and even more vocal still. I’d like to see Peter Dutton more aggressively challenge Labor on this more after the style of a determined Tony Abbott – he’s probably the benchmark for a tough opposition leader.
.
However I wish I could say the Dutton opposition was doing as well challenging Labor on the economy as it is with this issue.
.
I think the heavy hand of the law and the government bureaucracy should focus on clear cases of illegal activity like the very public chanting of “gas the Jews”.
.
But all other obnoxious behaviour, incompatible with the values of a free democracy, should be clearly called out and condemned publicly. We all have a role there.
You are of course correct in saying that protests are more than just free speech, that they are a form of politics. But no system of power can ignore the public, whether it is Putins Russia, Bidens USA, or Xie’s China. I recall the protests in Washington after the last presidential election when the democrats got so upset, when ever there are protests someone on the political spectrum won’t like them. But it is better than a full scale civil war. Nor can you tell the public once every three years “this is when you get your say” that is a joke. We get no say, rather a mixed bag lies from both sides, best described as representations of intent, rather than promises, and then we are supposed to lay back enjoy the abuse till the next election. If I have a problem with protests it is that we don’t enough of them.
“In the case of these pro-palestinian protests, they are coming at a huge cost.”
They’re not protests. Hamas has opened the gate for a war on Israel, and their supporters have taken up their banner as a war against Jews to whatever level is allowed by local constabalery. They’re not protests – it’s warfare as much as is locally permitted.
There are “protests” and then there are “riots”. Any “protest” that impinges on the civil rights of non-participants is not a matter of free-speech. It is a riot, and should be punished with the full force of the law. That it rarely is punished is simply the duplicity of politics and media hypocrisy.
It’s called anarcho-tyrany. Tolerance of civil disorder by the state and repression of action taken by citizens to ameliorate it, viz the BLM (Marxist) marches allowed during the medical martial law of 2020 but the arrest in her own home of Zoe Buhler. This process is much further along in the urban areas of the United States
“such inviolability as the right to protest possesses is limited by the extent to which a protest is designed to protect the rights and interests of Australian citizens from the actions or inactions of an Australian government. In other words, it must relate to an issue that is within the power of an Australian government to redress. And protests must be proportionate. Their purpose is to send a message to government. Not to punish it, and by extension the Australian people.”
I have no sympathy for these particular demonstrators but I could not disagree more with the above statement. Freedom of assembly is freedom of assembly. If laws are being broken the lawbreakers should be prosecuted- in this case I would be happy to make a point of investing in every prosecution to the hilt – but to impose a series of conditions that need to be met for a ‘valid’ protest/demonstration/assembly is to cede far to much power to the state. Plus there is the obvious problem of who decides whether said conditions have been met. The courts? Politicians? “The minister for public safety has determined that your protest is not proportionate to the issue at hand”… Perish the thought.
If I want to assemble with a thousand of my closest friends, and we are breaking no laws, the onus should never be on me to prove that my assembly is ‘valid’.
If you block the traffic, or get in someone’s face, you are breaking laws. That the police can’t or won’t enforce those laws does not condone your behaviour. The ex-Service people here will recall how back in the good old days, the Australian armed forces had rules about what was called “Aid to the Civil Power” which outlined the circumstances in which the forces could be used, at the request of the civil authorities, to control riots. Shame it isn’t still used.
We’re in fierce agreement that the freedom of assembly does not include the freedom to break the law. But your nostalgia re: deploying the army to suppress protests? I’d just say be careful what you wish for. I’m not the only person in this comment thread to note how easily the boot can be on the other foot. You may not like these protestors, but I certainly reserve the right to protest for various causes that many other Australians would not like, and I don’t want to have the army deployed against me just because my cause is not a popular one.
I have no problem with public protests, until the protesters impinge on the rights of others. One tactic that my sons saw used by the police in London for protests in front oh the Houses of Parliament. Apparently they erected a large fenced-in compound across the road where protesters were to gather, keeping the roads clear. If you wanted to protest, you had to so in the compound. And there you stayed, because the cops would not let you leave.
Re the illustration above – am I imagining things, or is this type of in-your-face activism by precocious teenagers predominantly a female phenomenon? The world seems suddenly full of Gretas. They certainly look thoroughly obnoxious in the picture. I realise they have to practice drawing attention to themselves, but what must they be like to teach? Hopefully they aren’t as empty-headed as they look.
We are dealing with a mixture of ideas here – first, those in the picture are obviously of Arab descent. Why is it shocking that they are not pro-Israel?
Secondly, the girl is young and has featured a dustbin into which an Israeli flag is falling – seriously, does that make her a ‘Jew baiter’? (Whatever that means). Does that make her Hitler? Are the Jews really so fragile that they will fall into a hysterical mess if confronted by a twenty year old girl with a poster?
Which brings me to the obvious issue – all the ‘anti-Semitism’ that is so ‘shocking’ in the demonstrations in Australia (& Britain for that matter), seems to have been initiated by a similar demographic. That is, our immigration policy has enabled Muslim immigrants for generations and now we are shocked that there is ‘anti-Semitism’? The anti-Semitism has certainly not come from anyone I know – perhaps those in the media might start actually talking the truth. Just as not a single terrorist act has ever been described by anyone in the media as a result of the religion of peace, but is always approached with puzzlement and incomprehension as to the ‘motives’ behind it, so too, this appearance of ‘anti-Semitism’ is attributed to the ordinary Australian, those who, like me, never wanted mass immigration of a culture whose very essence demands the extermination of Christianity- aahhh that’s why they are welcomed here!
And THAT brings me to another underlying issue here – talking about vague, amorphous, oleaginous words designed to label people and negate whatever they say without dealing with the substance of what is said – what exact is anti-Semitism?
Is it persecution of Jews? Or is it disagreement with Israel’s politics? Is it seriously a twenty-something Arab girl with a poster of an Israeli flag falling into a dustbin?
Thanks, Peter, for a well-articulated argument — and the spine-chilling photo up top. Do we need any further confirmation of the dangers of youthful, naive idealists? And their idiot mentors, some of whom even get voted into parliament.
But one important thing overlooked, by the article, and the many comments, is that rights don’t come out of a vacuum: we’re not born with them, and they don’t simply fall from the sky. They’ve been fought for, often with great sacrifice, over millennia, and need constant protection. So-called universal human rights can be conferred only by a functional society, and the more liberal-democratic it is, the broader the range of rights, and our freedom to express them. For that reason, all rights must come with a responsibility: to protect the integrity of that supportive society (a bit like taxes — pay them fairly if you want to benefit from your society). If speech threatens such social integrity, e.g. by promoting hostility to, or restricting the freedom of, certain individuals or subgroups, then it extends beyond reasonable free expression, and should be sanctioned or suppressed. Promotion of violence should never be tolerated.
Well put, pmprociv, though (I feel sure you would agree) the idea that speech should be curtailed on the ground of “promoting hostility” to groups is fraught with peril. One only has to look at the dismally drafted s. 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and how it has been applied in the courts. Incitement to violence should not be allowed, but no-one has the right not to be offended by another’s speech. That applies to the speech of persons pushing religious or political ideological ideologies that don’t tolerate free speech, and would snuff it out if they could, such as old-fashioned comms, islamists or Nazi sympathisers.
Yes, Sindri, it is difficult to draw that fine yet blurred line. Being offended, even outraged, is also a universal right, and we should be free to express those feelings in response to offence. However, being physically threatened is definitely going too far, and should be banned. “Racial discrimination” is an additional minefield, embracing two very poorly-defined, wide-ranging terms. Great for lawyers, of course.
Having fractured our society, people cannot tell right from wrong anymore. All governments were ruthless about pushing a vaccine that didn’t work very well, but allow Muslims and their cheer squad to do whatever the hell they like. They should ask these moronic young people, would you prefer your plane piloted by an Israeli who loves life, or by a Muslim martyr that loves death? And to bring in Palestinians seething with hate taught to them from infancy into this country is absolutely insane.
Well said, bollux!
This article (totally lacking in self-awareness; totally full of self-absorption) about why teachers should be allowed to comment on Gaza is a perfect example of why teachers should not be able to comment on Gaza.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/as-a-high-school-teacher-i-should-be-able-to-talk-to-students-about-gaza-20231128-p5enhx.html
I read that on SMH and wondered how someone, supposedly intelligent enough to be a teacher, could view her thoroughly biassed view as an impartial review of a conflict in international affairs for her students. They’re really so transparent. And SMH allows her a platform as though it’s a reasonable point of view.
Freedom is not licence. It does not give protesters the right to call for violence against others. It does not give the right to engage in intimidatory motorcades.
.
Suella Braverman’s criticism of British police could equally be applied here.
I think we’ve begun to see a voter backlash against Labor following the ugly pro Palestinian demonstrations we’ve been witnessing – due to Labor’s lack of leadership and equivocation in dealing with them and the issues involved.
.
Between the last two Newspolls and as the demonstrations have become firmly on the public consciousness there’s been a huge fall in Labor’s primary vote of over 11% – it dropped from 35% to 31% during that time.
.
That’s an extraordinary drop and now puts the Coalition level pegging with Labor on two party preferred, even marginally ahead in some polls.
.
It’s particularly significant considering Labor had maintained a clear lead up until now on two party preferred despite all the problems we’ve had with inflation, cost of living pressures and higher interest rates for so long . It’s also come when the latest inflation figures are actually looking better.
It would me a mistake to think that large ugly demonstrations in our normally peaceful streets like we’ve been recently witnessing are likely to influence people to support the cause of those protesting.
.
I think in an oblique way that has something to do with Australians’ general dislike of whingers. Australians also have very good bull dust detectors. So if you’re going to mount large demonstrations in Australia you need to have a pretty good clear cut justified cause. Then you’ll probably get some support. Otherwise you’re likely to be very disappointed.
.
And you better make sure those protests don’t get ugly because the uglier the demonstrations are the less likely they are to have a positive effect for the cause of the protesters. They can actually be counterproductive and a risk for political parties who get involved.
.
We saw a classic case of that in 1966 with massive ugly anti Vietnam war protests against the American war policy and that of the Coalition government. There were placards accusing President Johnson of crimes against humanity – ring a bell?
.
The election that followed turned out to be a landslide against Labor who’d opposed Australia’s Vietnam War policy along with the protesters. That massive loss happened despite the protests, possibly because of them. And it happened despite 60% of Australians being opposed to conscription for the war, a key part of the Coalition’s Vietnam policy.
.
Protests supporting the Palestinians have been ugly including very public chanting of ” gas the Jews”. They just got despicably uglier on another level in Melbourne. The Age reports today that:
.
“Family members of Israelis who were killed or taken hostage by Hamas had to seek shelter at a Melbourne police station after they were confronted by a group of pro-Palestinian protesters in the lobby of their Docklands hotel.”
.
Labor’s equivocation and lack of leadership on the Palestinian issue could well cost them the next election even with a weak opposition.
.
Peter Dutton and Angus Taylor have made little impact from Labor’s poor handling of the inflation threat and cost of living pressures but this Palestinian issue with its links to immigration policy is a bread and butter issue for Peter Dutton.
.
Labor’s lack of leadership, equivocation and disunity on the Palestinian issue are arguably turning out to be massive gotcha moments for the Coalition to use.
.
And on issues such as this the Coalition are likely to have far superior policies. On the current inflation threat we haven’t seen superior policies from the Coalition. Like Labor they’ve had no effective policies on the inflation issue.
“Family members of Israelis who were killed or taken hostage by Hamas had to seek shelter at a Melbourne police station after they were confronted by a group of pro-Palestinian protesters in the lobby of their Docklands hotel.”
.
If a similar number of protestors entered a Melbourne police station and demonstrated in the same way against police inaction in this matter what would happen?
.
I looked for a report of this atrocity on the ABC news website and didn’t find a mention despite the fact it was reported by many other news media organisations.
Brian Boru
One poster on The Australian said :
“Their behaviour was poor, but we have freedom of expression in a democracy …
So I responded with this:
“So where would you draw the line on what is acceptable and lawful freedom of expression?
.
These people are ordinary citizens who are grieving and deserve their privacy without being confronted by protesters in their place of accommodation.
.
So if you think no action should be taken here where would you draw the line? Home invasions of innocent Jewish people? Or would that be ok too? “
My comment was rejected.