Protest marches.

[barreness]

it's an interesting and challenging discussion. Last thing we want to do is limit freedom to express concern about government action or non action like the dictatorships run by Xi and Putin.

However we shouldn't accept support of terrorism or treason. Maybe the rule could be:

• not allowed to wave the banners of or call for support of a prescribed terrorist group (eg. Hamas)
• not allowed to wave the banners of a country whose forces are in armed conflict with Australia.

So waving the Israeli or Palestinian flag or calling for an end to attacks is fine. Waving Hamas flag bad.

Ukrainian or Russian flag are fine as we are not involved but say a certain big country attacked one of its smaller independent democratic neighbours and we join a coalition to help defend them then waving the flag or supporting the big country should be illegal with severe punishment.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Prescribed by whom?



'Last thing we want to do is limit freedom to express concern about government action'...........'not allowed to wave the banners of a country whose forces are in armed conflict with Australia'

A little incongruous no?

 

[kickazz]

The idea of blocking protests in the courts or needing pre-approval to stage one is so anti-democratic it's not funny. If the protest turns from peaceful to violent, by all means throw the book at them, but the right to protest without approval is the point of the right.

I don't think certain flags and so on should be banned outright. Call them out for what they are - hate flags.

Pre approval, or at least pre notification, is important so emergency services can be notified of blocked streets etc

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Can't tell you how many times I've seen those arguments trotted out here by progressives...so yes, we are consistent!

If you're marching with haters of Jews and people carrying Hezbollah flags, you're guilty by association just as much as anyone marching with Nazis. Protesting on October 7 would be a massive slap in the face to the innocent people who suffered in that day - it's hard to believe anyone is dumb enough to think it was a good idea.

Remember when you protested a thread ban by deleting your account?

From that we can deduce that you support everything Andrew Tate has said and done.

 

[Skeppersap]

There must be a terrorist under there somewhere



1, 2 and 3 are not even in dispute.

View attachment 2133027

In which case the original attacks on October 7 were acts of genocide as well ...

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yes, but only a moron would buy into that narrative, a mouthbreather that doesn't understand context and nuance.

I'd argue that morons like this are certainly in the minuscule minority, even though msm and social media would have you believe that this is some sort of 'norm'

See above.

Jan and Joe public certainly are not in favour of Israel wiping out Gaza, and at the same time because of this view are also not in support of terrorist organizations.

Context and nuance, walk and chew gum at the same time and all that....

The post I replied to gives the impression that the 'narrative' is popular opinion, I would hope you don't see it that way.

Or are you subtly calling out the 'mouthbreather morons' in this very thread who don't see a difference between a Palestinian flag, and a Hamas or Hezbollah flag?

If there are any then yes, I'd be calling them out

Or are you saying it's insignificant as it doesn't really deserve discussion. Alarm

This is more how I see it

 

[CM86]

If there are any then yes, I'd be calling them out

I don't think you would.
I think you'd look for reasons to downplay, excuse or justify it, or just ignore it.
I hope I'm wrong.

There are probably a few who genuinely cared about the cause.... But they would be a very small minority of those who now fly the Palestine, Hamas or Hezbollah flag.

The post I replied to gives the impression that the 'narrative' is popular opinion, I would hope you don't see it that way.

If there are any then yes, I'd be calling them out

This is more how I see it

The impression I get from your post about the impression you got from my post, is that you think I'm the problem, for discussing it.
And you don't have actual critiques of my positions or arguments. You can only imply that I'm making definitive points of either absolutes or majorities, when I'm not.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't think you would.
I think you'd look for reasons to downplay, excuse or justify it, or just ignore it.
I hope I'm wrong.

Yes, you're very very wrong

The impression I get from your post about the impression you got from my post, is that you think I'm the problem, for discussing it.

And you don't have actual critiques of my positions or arguments. You can only imply that I'm making definitive points of either absolutes or majorities, when I'm not.

They're observations cm, and yes like I said you allude this narrative as definitive

 

[spinynorman]

Well, the government and police got their headline, and the media happily gave it to them, even though the actual story provides an important piece of context that indicates maybe it isn’t Nazis protesting here today.

It also shows a clear flaw of the anti-swastika laws, as I doubt even most people who support them would agree it should include a case such as this where the symbols are being used to make an anti-Nazi point. But that’s likely a topic for a different thread.

 

[CM86]

Yes, you're very very wrong

FFS...

They're observations cm, and yes like I said you allude this narrative as definitive

They're your opinions, not observations.

 

[Carringbush2010]

View attachment 2133537

FFS...


They're your opinions, not observations.

So you think in your opinion I should be calling out Skeppersap for the red arrows. That doesn't come across as mouth breather with no context, if that's what you're getting at.


They're your opinions, not observations. And? Opinions, observations, whatever term you wanna use, you paint the narrative of, to paraphrase 'excuse to hate on' as a definite. Agreed, but what you leave out is that this definitive 'narrative' is held by a minuscule few.

Should we discuss it? Sure, we are but leave all the context on the table.

Just an observation.

 

[CM86]

Just for Carringbush2010 the spoiler below.

Spoiler

Img 1 is post 55 of this page
Img 2 is post 56 of this page
Img 3 is post 57 of this page


The image below is a screenshot of the three posts in a row.

 

[FruitTingles]

View attachment 2133501

Well, the government and police got their headline, and the media happily gave it to them, even though the actual story provides an important piece of context that indicates maybe it isn’t Nazis protesting here today.

It also shows a clear flaw of the anti-swastika laws, as I doubt even most people who support them would agree it should include a case such as this where the symbols are being used to make an anti-Nazi point. But that’s likely a topic for a different thread.

Turns out the guy was Jewish. Big win for Mr potato head