Melbourne Protests:Land Forces 2024 International Land Defence Exposition

[Gethelred]

We're not discussing the broader ramifications of protest, we're discussing 'protesters' throwing piss, shit and vomit on cops and journos.

That was until you decided to insert yourself.

... all of which can, quite thoroughly, be understood by understanding what nation-states do to protect themselves (ie, examining the framing of protests in a modern context by media as "Inconvenience at best, injuring people at worst!") and examining the level of unrest required to actually evince change within societies.

If you don't want to talk about that that's fine, but "I don't want to talk about that!" doesn't render something irrelevant any more than "I haven't read it" does.

 

[bzparkes]

... all of which can, quite thoroughly, be understood by understanding what nation-states do to protect themselves (ie, examining the framing of protests in a modern context by media as "Inconvenience at best, injuring people at worst!") and examining the level of unrest required to actually evince change within societies.

If you don't want to talk about that that's fine, but "I don't want to talk about that!" doesn't render something irrelevant any more than "I haven't read it" does.

I'd have thought saying it's not relevant to the thread numerous times would've given a pretty good indication that I don't have any interest in discussing that in this thread.

 

[Gethelred]

I'd have thought saying it's not relevant to the thread numerous times would've given a pretty good indication that I don't have any interest in discussing that in this thread.

... you've just exemplared intellectual cowardice for me. You don't want to talk about something, so you're trying to declare it irrelevant.

That's pretty funny, bz.

 

[bzparkes]

... you've just exemplared intellectual cowardice for me. You don't want to talk about something, so you're trying to declare it irrelevant.

That's pretty funny, bz.

Look, I get you enjoy being a complete smartarse but not everyone else is enamored by it.

 

[Gethelred]

Look, I get you enjoy being a complete smartarse but not everyone else is enamored by it.

I'll leave you alone from here, but it'll be as much to save you from yourself as anything else.

Just, realise that just being honest about what you wanted - "I don't want to talk about that" - would've made things a lot easier for you. That's good advice on this forum, but you can feel free to use it in other parts of your life as well.

 

[bzparkes]

I'll leave you alone from here, but it'll be as much to save you from yourself as anything else.

Just, realise that just being honest about what you wanted - "I don't want to talk about that" - would've made things a lot easier for you. That's good advice on this forum, but you can feel free to use it in other parts of your life as well.

I said that a number of times.

You just clearly can't take the hint.

 

[SnakeMan86]

... all of which can, quite thoroughly, be understood by understanding what nation-states do to protect themselves (ie, examining the framing of protests in a modern context by media as "Inconvenience at best, injuring people at worst!") and examining the level of unrest required to actually evince change within societies.

If you don't want to talk about that that's fine, but "I don't want to talk about that!" doesn't render something irrelevant any more than "I haven't read it" does.

Causing violence.. to protest violence.. Doesn't bring change, it's just a recipe for more violence.

And i'll say it again, there were a large part of the crowd yesterday, who had no stake in the issue at all, they were there just to cause chaos. There were black dressed, balaclava wearing individuals literally rocking up just to throw projectiles and run off. There is no justification for this, the men and women of the police force didnt deserve what happened yesterday. The whole day will do more harm than good to the issue at hand

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So, anyone know what the dregs of our society have been up to today?

 

[Gethelred]

Causing violence.. to protest violence.. Doesn't bring change, it's just a recipe for more violence.

I think you're failing to enunciate or frame the problem correctly. What you're seeing - violent protest - is a symptom of a society whose failsafes for disenfranchisement have ceased operating, and those without a voice cannot be heard unless they scream.

If you want to limit violent protest, actually listen to what they say they want. You don't even need to consider it fully or properly; often, people are content simply with just being heard, their issues acknowledged.

I mean, as you say: violence begets more violence. You turn out the riot cops and the tear gas, people are going to rock up wearing masks and creating makeshift shields from signs or worse.

And i'll say it again, there were a large part of the crowd yesterday, who had no stake in the issue at all, they were there just to cause chaos.

Opportunists always exist, but to focus purely on those opportunists is the media's purpose in a modern context.

Their job is to disenfranchise the populace away from the protest. Bad for business, bad for the owners of industry and the media.

There were black dressed, balaclava wearing individuals literally rocking up just to throw projectiles and run off. There is no justification for this, the men and women of the police force didnt deserve what happened yesterday. The whole day will do more harm than good to the issue at hand

But the problem remains: the police defending private citizens due to money provided to the government for that specific purpose, and a government choosing to ignore the issues of its citizens violently.

In another context, that'd be called a bribe or protection money.

I have some sympathy for police attacked yesterday; they're in a shit situation, being attacked by what is going on up the chain of command. But the cause of this is a failure of society to adequately listen to protest over a longer period of time than simply the Israel-Gaza war, rather than simply a few bad eggs.

 

[evolved2]

Posted this in the Police Brutality thread, figured it makes sense in here too:

The greatest indication of statehood is the monopolization of violence; ie, the state controls who is allowed to commit an act of violence and or where/when it occurs. Affecting the pretense that violence is not inherent to all states is to be ignorant of the nature of a nation-state's historical origins and the maintenance of its position and role within our society. This is why the Jan-6 violence is considered a coup attempt; had there been enough support in the right places and/or the mob got a hold of the right people - Biden or Pelosi - without the state being able to intervene to stop them in the moment, the state no longer has a claim to effective control of the nation and thus regime change is required to one that does or can. Essentially, that claim to being able to control the peace is itself a threat of violence against anyone who would break that peace.

A police force within the nation state comes courtesy of this, and the necessary side effect is police brutality and heavyhandedness. While some nations - liberal nations - have guidelines and procedures to protect the public from their own violence, all nations which feature the basic model of policing are still working from the assumption that without police there is no maintenance of the peace and thus no control or monopoly on violence. This is - IMO - a genuinely absurd viewpoint; a nation-state has an armed forces for external defense, and can employ those armed forces as they choose (limited by constitution, which is subject to change in most circumstances if difficult). The Feds chose to express that power in the NT intervention - possible without a referendum because of the difference between a federated state and a territory in terms of being subject to commonwealth rule directly instead of having the federal government's powers tightly constrained - but you get the picture: the government was able to send in the military to enforce their will over the people, whether it was needed or not. What this is intended to demonstrate is that decisions concerning violence - ie, which is justified and which is not - are genuinely made for political reasons which are used to paint over violent repression and state control.

Had the government wanted to violently repress the anti-lockdown protests, they could've and would've been well within their purview to do so, and it would've been completely justifiable from their perspective.

To the point of this little journey into theory: when a populace becomes discontented with what their state is doing, there is no recourse for them other than regime change or civil disrest. We have implements of state to institute regime change - electoral cycles - but if an action or policy is bipartisan, there is no means to evince change the populace wants. The populace are, in effect, prisoners of their own nation state who is acting in their names. This is equally true of refugee 'Return the Boats!' policies as it is of forcibly restricting protest rights; if the populace does not agree, there is zero recourse as far as regime change goes because of the nature of the political system shutting some ideas out and enforcing their control over their territories.

The only option then, therefore, is political violence. Attempt to overthrow the nation-state's monopoly over violence, and bring about enough... threat of regime change that the system is compelled to listen to protect itself; or, succeed and become a new regime.

Now, you may not like this. You can choose to shove your fingers in your ears and/or disagree. But this is the problem in a nutshell: if there is no non-violent political recourse to evince change, a populace may choose instead to attempt a violent means of change. If y'all don't want that, perhaps consider listening to other people - even if they're perennial protesters - ahead of just wholesale ignoring them.

After all, the Declaration of Independence does hold the following words, does it not?

I believe there were 1200 or so protesters involved. They were given the opportunity to protest and be heard. The violence and flinging shit only serves to hurt public perception of their cause, especially since protesters were opposing violence.

Its fair to assume the majority of Australians do not have a problem with a defence exhibition being held in Melbourne; furthermore, I suspect a majority of Australians are supportive of the police presence to ensure the defence expo can go ahead.

In a healthy democracy the government should do the bidding of the majority rather than listening to 1200 protestors. What more can you ask of the government than to do the will of the majority?

 

[Gethelred]

I believe there were 1200 or so protesters involved.

Can you confirm that figure?

I'm interested - if it was only 1200 people - in how many were expected if the organisers paid $15 million to the state government to protect them.

Does it cost that much to restrain 1200 people?

They were given the opportunity to protest and be heard. The violence and flinging shit only serves to hurt public perception of their cause, especially since protesters were opposing violence.

Its fair to assume the majority of Australians do not have a problem with a defence exhibition being held in Melbourne; furthermore, I suspect a majority of Australians are supportive of the police presence to ensure the defence expo can go ahead.

In a healthy democracy the government should do the bidding of the majority rather than listening to 1200 protestors. What more can you ask of the government than to do the will of the majority?

This is an intense focus on the single issue macro. I've taken a number of the posters in this thread at their word when they describe some of the protesters as 'perennial', or are you now going to argue with them that the focus should be so intense on the single issue?

As for the notion of what more a healthy democracy can do, they can cease depicting all protests as a waste of time at best or focusing solely on the violent elements as though they were the entirety of a protest movement. They can ensure that arguments are actually heard, rather than searching for the nearest box to cram people into in order to ignore them. They can cease violently repressing protests, because doing so hardens the protesters into increasing displays of violence.

And they can cease treating their populations like criminals unfit for hearing.

 

[SnakeMan86]

I think you're failing to enunciate or frame the problem correctly. What you're seeing - violent protest - is a symptom of a society whose failsafes for disenfranchisement have ceased operating, and those without a voice cannot be heard unless they scream.

If you want to limit violent protest, actually listen to what they say they want. You don't even need to consider it fully or properly; often, people are content simply with just being heard, their issues acknowledged.

So where does it end? Violent protests against the jab, against lockdowns etc no, but this yes?

I mean, as you say: violence begets more violence. You turn out the riot cops and the tear gas, people are going to rock up wearing masks and creating makeshift shields from signs or worse.

Do you really think the cops would have rocked up in riot gear if there was no chance of violence? They new what was coming, they had to prepare accordingly.
You cant really think, that if half a dozen cops rocked up in plain uniform yesterday that things would have been more peaceful... Everyone would have put there bags of vomit, feces and other projectiles away and walked around with signs....
It would have been anarchy.

Opportunists always exist, but to focus purely on those opportunists is the media's purpose in a modern context.
Their job is to disenfranchise the populace away from the protest. Bad for business, bad for the owners of industry and the media.

I'd argue that the worse the protest is.. the better it is for the media. More clicks, more views. The problem is the views aren't for information on the issue.. Its to see what these dickheads did.

But the problem remains: the police defending private citizens due to money provided to the government for that specific purpose, and a government choosing to ignore the issues of its citizens violently.

In another context, that'd be called a bribe or protection money.

I have some sympathy for police attacked yesterday; they're in a shit situation, being attacked by what is going on up the chain of command. But the cause of this is a failure of society to adequately listen to protest over a longer period of time than simply the Israel-Gaza war, rather than simply a few bad eggs.

The police were there to defend private citizens.. ..sure. Do these private citizens deserve protection... Different argument..

But the main focus... was to stop a violent protest from escalating into the streets and becoming out of control to where innocent public were harmed and more property was damaged.
People continuing to frame this whole thing as the police either
A) Looking for a fight
B) Deserving what happened
are just delusional radicals.

 

[hawkman]

I believe there were 1200 or so protesters involved. They were given the opportunity to protest and be heard. The violence and flinging shit only serves to hurt public perception of their cause, especially since protesters were opposing violence.

Its fair to assume the majority of Australians do not have a problem with a defence exhibition being held in Melbourne; furthermore, I suspect a majority of Australians are supportive of the police presence to ensure the defence expo can go ahead.

In a healthy democracy the government should do the bidding of the majority rather than listening to 1200 protestors. What more can you ask of the government than to do the will of the majority?

There would also be a good portion of the 1200 that would barely know what they were protesting about. They were just there as an excuse to cause trouble which all it did was make it worse for those genuinely protesting about the expo

 

[Carn The Berries]

"I haven't read it," =/= "irrelevant"

I've discussed the broader ramifications of protest, and why violent protest happens. You're welcome to argue with my argument as you like, but depicting it as irrelevant suggests one of two things about you:

• you genuinely haven't read it, or read all of it. If you had, you'd know it was relevant.
• you've read some of it and you urgently started reaching left and right for a reason to dismiss it.

So, which is it? Or are you actually running away?

I've read it, and understand the point you are trying to make. My question is, how do you define a group/groups having a legitimate belief that they're not being listened to? I would suggest that, in the current example we're discussing, there would be a large portion of the population (including elected representatives) who would share their view. Does simply not getting exactly what you want justify resorting to violence?

The concept makes sense it theory, but the nuance of reality raises a lot of questions in my mind.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

So, anyone know what the dregs of our society have been up to today?

I heard there were about 100. Marching and chanting but no violence so far. Calling for arms embargo, whatever that is.

 

[Gethelred]

So where does it end? Violent protests against the jab, against lockdowns etc no, but this yes?

That's such an interesting microcosm of where this conversation is at. You're wondering where it ends; if you review my initial post, I've told you where I think it ends.

I want to stop it where it starts. Does that not sound like a worthwhile idea?

Do you really think the cops would have rocked up in riot gear if there was no chance of violence? They new what was coming, they had to prepare accordingly.

... are you telling me you think police attitudes toward protests has always been proportionate in this country?

You cant really think, that if half a dozen cops rocked up in plain uniform yesterday that things would have been more peaceful... Everyone would have put there bags of vomit, feces and other projectiles away and walked around with signs....
It would have been anarchy.

I reckon there would've been a decidedly different attitude from the protesters than what happened, but the hypotheticals aren't really relevant to what actually happened.

I'd argue that the worse the protest is.. the better it is for the media. More clicks, more views. The problem is the views aren't for information on the issue.. Its to see what these dickheads did.

... which is only part of why they depict protest the way they do.

Making protest unattractive as a means of social change reinforces the status quo. To detail the myriad of ways the media maintains an establishment bias would also be off topic for this thread, but it's a foundational aspect of the modern liberal democracy propaganda model; ignore them as an inconvenience, then hyperfocus on the violent elements sick of being ignored to disenfranchise people from that protest movement.

The police were there to defend private citizens.. ..sure. Do these private citizens deserve protection... Different argument..

Now, you're cooking with gas!

That's an interesting idea; are all owed equal protection under the law; or, alternatively, should a government allow a private entity to purchase security from it?

That'd be a decent discussion for this thread, and I'd be happy to debate it with you.

But the main focus... was to stop a violent protest from escalating into the streets and becoming out of control to where innocent public were harmed and more property was damaged.
People continuing to frame this whole thing as the police either
A) Looking for a fight
B) Deserving what happened
are just delusional radicals.

... and that's where you lose me, because treating protesters like this guarantees violent protests.

They're in a catch 22:

• you don't listen to their non-violent protest.
• you refuse to listen to their partially violent protest after it's violently repressed by the state.

How in utter **** are they going to get your attention without violence if that's your attitude, SM?

 

[Gethelred]

I've read it, and understand the point you are trying to make. My question is, how do you define a group/groups having a legitimate belief that they're not being listened to? I would suggest that, in the current example we're discussing, there would be a large portion of the population (including elected representatives) who would share their view. Does simply not getting exactly what you want justify resorting to violence?

The concept makes sense it theory, but the nuance of reality raises a lot of questions in my mind.

If we're actually talking about what to do about it - it being the entire status quo which produces violent protest - what I'd like is for the Fourth Estate to actually behave as separate from the First and try and attempt understanding of any protests underpinnings, struggles; why are they out there, volunteering their most precious resource in time and risking their safety at the hands of police )who absolutely have been heavy-handed in the past)?

Cease focusing society's lens wholly on the violent wings of protest. Discuss what they actually want. Steelman their arguments instead of strawmanning them. Put the focus on the actual government to address the concerns of the protesters; what can be done to actually fix an injustice?

Government and that monopoly on violence is unavoidable, but the media and wider society shapes how government chooses to implement that monopoly. Only because media shapes perspectives in the government's favour does protest trend ever in a steadily more violent direction.

 

[SnakeMan86]

That's such an interesting microcosm of where this conversation is at. You're wondering where it ends; if you review my initial post, I've told you where I think it ends.

I want to stop it where it starts. Does that not sound like a worthwhile idea?

I think its worthwhile.. but unrealistic.

... are you telling me you think police attitudes toward protests has always been proportionate in this country?

I reckon there would've been a decidedly different attitude from the protesters than what happened, but the hypotheticals aren't really relevant to what actually happened.

I think police attitudes are like any attitude to risk, especially when its the innocent bystander that can be implicated.
If somethings a low risk, you prepare for it to be medium.
If somethings of a medium risk, then you prepare for high etc. It doesn't take much for these things to escalate, and the ramifications of trying to play catch up in the heat of the moment can be dire.

... which is only part of why they depict protest the way they do.

Making protest unattractive as a means of social change reinforces the status quo. To detail the myriad of ways the media maintains an establishment bias would also be off topic for this thread, but it's a foundational aspect of the modern liberal democracy propaganda model; ignore them as an inconvenience, then hyperfocus on the violent elements sick of being ignored to disenfranchise people from that protest movement.

The problem is, you eliminate any positive discourse when you introduce elements of what happened yesterday. If theres no feces and vomit thrown on police officers, then that reduces negative publicity that comes to the protest. Its up to the protest to use the media to there advantage.. all they did was use it to there disadvantage.
Do you think the average Joe who witnessed what happened yesterday (including being a bystander, not seeing it in the media) would walk away from it with any sympathy towards the issue? or, with any interest in researching the topic?

Now, you're cooking with gas!

That's an interesting idea; are all owed equal protection under the law; or, alternatively, should a government allow a private entity to purchase security from it?

That'd be a decent discussion for this thread, and I'd be happy to debate it with you.

Yeah i'm a fence sitter, I do think all are owed some level of protection under the law (well, short of pedo's)
But, if the protest didn't have the potential of the extremity that it did.. It wouldn't warrant the amount of spending on protection

... and that's where you lose me, because treating protesters like this guarantees violent protests.

They're in a catch 22:

• you don't listen to their non-violent protest.
• you refuse to listen to their partially violent protest after it's violently repressed by the state.

How in utter **** are they going to get your attention without violence if that's your attitude, SM?

Again, its my opinion.. and pretty obvious from what i witnessed, that people attended the protest with one interest in mind.. Cause chaos.
Police didn't treat them like violent protesters, they reacted to what was going to happen. There is a level of intel that they were clearly privvy to that allowed them to prepare the way that they did.

There have been varying documentaries on a range of topics that help shedding light into a whole variety of issues, i mean that's just a start i suppose. But im not aware of many instances.. Especially within Australia, where violence protesting violence has brought about any sought of significant positive change.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Minority thought .... trying to ilict change through violence?

That's not going to work in absolutely any political system ..... ever!!

And that what these dumbarses don't get

It might push the protest subject into mainstream thought but the violence associated with that won't ever ilict sympathy and in fact will counteract any good intentions behond the protesting

Now if the majority want change they could probably get it thru violent means or they could also get it through peaceful means

It's the way of human societies over the history of mankind

Violence begets violence ..... change thru violent means will only truly come about if the majority want it .... unless of course the minority have bigger and better weapons resources than the majority

 

[Gethelred]

Just to be clear before I begin, I'm not snipping stuff because I disagree with it; some of it I do, but some I don't. If you want to talk about an element I've snipped, bring it up again and I'll discuss it with you.

I think police attitudes are like any attitude to risk, especially when its the innocent bystander that can be implicated.
If somethings a low risk, you prepare for it to be medium.
If somethings of a medium risk, then you prepare for high etc. It doesn't take much for these things to escalate, and the ramifications of trying to play catch up in the heat of the moment can be dire.

It's interesting to me how your attitude to escalation is solely fixated on the protesters rather than the state, given the state's monopoly over violence (which is why I brought it up).

Protesters respond to the state's level of perceived repression against their need to get their message out. A community policing approach - in which politicans get themselves out there with police escort, actively sitting down with organisers to hear the problem and try and acknowledge there is one, as opposed to a refusal to even hold such a hearing or that there's even an issue - has seen superior results at defusing violent protests worldwide, yet is frowned upon because 'Did you SEE what those ANIMALS did to those poor officers?!'

Too many looking to punish as opposed to understand.

The problem is, you eliminate any positive discourse when you introduce elements of what happened yesterday. If theres no feces and vomit thrown on police officers, then that reduces negative publicity that comes to the protest. Its up to the protest to use the media to there advantage.. all they did was use it to there disadvantage.

No. Nope. Absolutely not.

The media's role is to depict the truth, not to get played for advantage. The media's focus on 'Did you SEE what those ANIMALS did to those poor officers?!' is the problem that causes - in no small part - the violence of these protests.

And the media scoot off, scot free; they don't get as harmed as the police, they don't get arrested or peppersprayed. They get to misportray an entire grassroots movement as suits their own commercial payoff, exacerbating the entire shebang and ensuring more cops get hurt and more members of the public get arrested. All fair, all in a day's work.

Do you think the average Joe who witnessed what happened yesterday (including being a bystander, not seeing it in the media) would walk away from it with any sympathy towards the issue? or, with any interest in researching the topic?

Quite honestly, I think the last 50 years of being told that protest should be non-violent and that protests are inconvenient has worked on your average Joe entirely too well, and that your average Joe is complacent about the nature of the society around him.

... all of which is to say that Joe would get grumpy at his morning walk getting spoiled by getting asked for a minute of their time to hear about a charity drive for QLD firefighters, let alone violent protest of the kind that happened yesterday.

Yeah i'm a fence sitter, I do think all are owed some level of protection under the law (well, short of pedo's)
But, if the protest didn't have the potential of the extremity that it did.. It wouldn't warrant the amount of spending on protection

It's not the money that's concerning to me. It's the fact that - quite clearly - not all of us are entitled to the same level of protection under the law; that the government is willing to provide protection to the highest bidder.

Is that not concerning to you?

Police didn't treat them like violent protesters, they reacted to what was going to happen. There is a level of intel that they were clearly privvy to that allowed them to prepare the way that they did.

It's pretty well demonstrated worldwide that when you provide funding to the police they're gonna spend it. $15 mill gets a lot of bodies, gear and force into the streets.

There have been varying documentaries on a range of topics that help shedding light into a whole variety of issues, i mean that's just a start i suppose. But im not aware of many instances.. Especially within Australia, where violence protesting violence has brought about any sought of significant positive change.

I'm not talking documentaries; documentaries are special interest. I'm talking about the entire media landscape in this country.

Opinion is shaped in the moment by talkback radio, daily by the front page of the Herald Sun and the Australian, weekly by the Sydney Morning Herald and ABC's QandA and Insiders and 4 Corners. The original purpose of media was to disseminate information for the crown, before the emerging bourgeoisie classes decided that they needed to be informed, actually informed. They created what they termed the Fourth Estate when discussing British parliament; the first estate being nobles and the House of Lords, the second being the Church of England and its links to power, and the third being the House of Commons, with the Fourth being where the press sat, controlling how the populace felt and responded to the actions of the other three.

This is pivotal to the functioning of a democratic state: a free press necessitates reporting solely on the facts and interpreting those facts in accurate ways. Distorting the desires of protest and misshaping the levels of violence in order to sell ad revenue aligns them with the powers of government, and removes a release valve from democratic society.

Without a release valve, pressure builds until it is released.

What is needed is a press establishment willing to research, willing to do the work it takes to ensure that a claim is accurate or not, a press willing to prosecute a claim to the best of their ability.

I don't think we have that, and this is one of the consequences.

 

[eddiesmith]

So, anyone know what the dregs of our society have been up to today?

They’re too tired from yesterday’s hard work and staying in bed!

The 100 or so with nothing better to do apparently ran away as soon as police announced weapons searches.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Just to be clear before I begin, I'm not snipping stuff because I disagree with it; some of it I do, but some I don't. If you want to talk about an element I've snipped, bring it up again and I'll discuss it with you.

It's interesting to me how your attitude to escalation is solely fixated on the protesters rather than the state, given the state's monopoly over violence (which is why I brought it up).

Protesters respond to the state's level of perceived repression against their need to get their message out. A community policing approach - in which politicans get themselves out there with police escort, actively sitting down with organisers to hear the problem and try and acknowledge there is one, as opposed to a refusal to even hold such a hearing or that there's even an issue - has seen superior results at defusing violent protests worldwide, yet is frowned upon because 'Did you SEE what those ANIMALS did to those poor officers?!'

Too many looking to punish as opposed to understand.

No. Nope. Absolutely not.

The media's role is to depict the truth, not to get played for advantage. The media's focus on 'Did you SEE what those ANIMALS did to those poor officers?!' is the problem that causes - in no small part - the violence of these protests.

And the media scoot off, scot free; they don't get as harmed as the police, they don't get arrested or peppersprayed. They get to misportray an entire grassroots movement as suits their own commercial payoff, exacerbating the entire shebang and ensuring more cops get hurt and more members of the public get arrested. All fair, all in a day's work.

Quite honestly, I think the last 50 years of being told that protest should be non-violent and that protests are inconvenient has worked on your average Joe entirely too well, and that your average Joe is complacent about the nature of the society around him.

... all of which is to say that Joe would get grumpy at his morning walk getting spoiled by getting asked for a minute of their time to hear about a charity drive for QLD firefighters, let alone violent protest of the kind that happened yesterday.

It's not the money that's concerning to me. It's the fact that - quite clearly - not all of us are entitled to the same level of protection under the law; that the government is willing to provide protection to the highest bidder.

Is that not concerning to you?

It's pretty well demonstrated worldwide that when you provide funding to the police they're gonna spend it. $15 mill gets a lot of bodies, gear and force into the streets.

I'm not talking documentaries; documentaries are special interest. I'm talking about the entire media landscape in this country.

Opinion is shaped in the moment by talkback radio, daily by the front page of the Herald Sun and the Australian, weekly by the Sydney Morning Herald and ABC's QandA and Insiders and 4 Corners. The original purpose of media was to disseminate information for the crown, before the emerging bourgeoisie classes decided that they needed to be informed, actually informed. They created what they termed the Fourth Estate when discussing British parliament; the first estate being nobles and the House of Lords, the second being the Church of England and its links to power, and the third being the House of Commons, with the Fourth being where the press sat, controlling how the populace felt and responded to the actions of the other three.

This is pivotal to the functioning of a democratic state: a free press necessitates reporting solely on the facts and interpreting those facts in accurate ways. Distorting the desires of protest and misshaping the levels of violence in order to sell ad revenue aligns them with the powers of government, and removes a release valve from democratic society.

Without a release valve, pressure builds until it is released.

What is needed is a press establishment willing to research, willing to do the work it takes to ensure that a claim is accurate or not, a press willing to prosecute a claim to the best of their ability.

I don't think we have that, and this is one of the consequences.

Ahem Anthony .....

Yes Bob ......

The people have spoken ...they need .... sorry they want .... free press ... but they want this freedom press to be impartial

OK and ......

Well this free press the people want have to tell the truth ... report solely on the facts .... and they have to be accurate

OK so ..... these free press people have sit on the fence and be impartial .... they cant be seen to be biased and have any political affliations .... is that possible?

Apparently so .... there are free journalists out there who don't have an opinion on anything .... they don't even vote ..... they just want to tell the truth ... in a factual way.

But how can we as a nation tell if these free press are impartial and not purposely siding with one side or another .... and in fact are being factual and accurate with their reporting?

They want to build an establishment where they all get along and agree with one another .... a big media truth factory

And ... no one can challenge their factual truth reporting?

Well they are going to tell the truth ... they will fact check themselves ..... so I guess not

So we just have to take their word that they are going to be impartial and factual.

Yes

And ... who is paying them to tell this factual truth or are they going to do it for free?

They want to do it full time for free .... impartially of course .... no ad revenues .... no funding

Ok lets roll with it .... and see what happens

 

[evolved2]

Can you confirm that figure?

I'm interested - if it was only 1200 people - in how many were expected if the organisers paid $15 million to the state government to protect them.

Does it cost that much to restrain 1200 people?

ABC news reported there were over 1000 protesters and I read 1200 elsewhere - whether that's accurate or not, I couldn't say.

Some news sites report that up to 20,000 protesters were expected and I presume organisers and police wanted to account for that number even if just for OHS reasons.

This is an intense focus on the single issue macro. I've taken a number of the posters in this thread at their word when they describe some of the protesters as 'perennial', or are you now going to argue with them that the focus should be so intense on the single issue?

I don't know enough about protest groups to provide more than conjecture about perennial protesters.

Peaceful protest should be a fundamental right at all times. I would like to see all protests and causes treated equally, whether they be held by cookers or extinction rebellion.

The problem here is you have a small group circa 1000 that want to close down a expo - they've been heard, haven't they?

What more do you really want? Should the government and organisers be stopped by 1000 people? Without numbers, no protest will succeed.

As for the notion of what more a healthy democracy can do, they can cease depicting all protests as a waste of time at best or focusing solely on the violent elements as though they were the entirety of a protest movement. They can ensure that arguments are actually heard, rather than searching for the nearest box to cram people into in order to ignore them. They can cease violently repressing protests, because doing so hardens the protesters into increasing displays of violence.

And they can cease treating their populations like criminals unfit for hearing.

I see very little appetite for universal protest rights in Australia. Even union protests for medics and public transport staff can be unpopular if the public are inconvenienced, so what hope does any other cause have?

My personal opinion is that protesting a defence expo is such a niche target that protesters are the equivalent of "cookers". I support their right to protest, and that's where my support stops. The government cannot allow an important event to be closed down based on the subjective morality of a small group of people.

While the majority of protestors were not violent or criminal, any group will be tarred by the actions of the few. Let's face it, the actions of some protesters yesterday made it easy for police to claim the moral high ground. You won't win public support if you can't get that right.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Sounds like a trade union.

They sell arms to Netanyahu the baby killer mate

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

I love this argument.... "increasing the wealth gap"

The wealth gap is prevalent across every single inch of the political spectrum ...... never in a billion years will there ever not be a wealth gap under any political system .... human nature ...... the universe's built-in system of survival ...... just will not allow it

There was a time when I used to smoke a lot of drugs .... and I mean a lot of drugs ..... and I thought a free loving utopia of equality across our world was possible and sustainable .... it wasn't long after that I realised that I was inhaling too many drugs

How big do you want the wealth gap. It gets bigger every year, get with the program.