7 ms·

South Australia passes law to ban “disruptive” protests

61 points by drones 3y ago

drones 3y ago
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20230531050627/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/31/south-australia-passes-laws-to-crack-down-on-protest-after-disruption-of-oil-and-gas-conference https://web.archive.org/web/20230531050627/https://www.thegu...
arrowsmith 3y ago
Similar nonsense going on the UK with the new "Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act"[0]. Ostensibly it's been written to crack down on the type of attention-grabbing climate protests we've seen recently with people blocking motorway traffic, disrupting major public events etc., but (leaving aside the question of whether these types of protests should be stopped, or whether the existing legal structure isn't enough to stop them anyway) the law contains some preposterously vague wording that should alarm anyone who cares about the right to protest in a democracy. For example, it outlaws "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance" - a protest that doesn't cause "nuisance" isn't much of a protest, is it? https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Big-Brother-Watch-briefing-on-the-Police-Crime-Sentencing-and-Courts-Bill-House-of-Lords-Report-Stage-Fi7039.pdf https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Bi...
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Ostensibly it's been written to crack down on the type of attention-grabbing climate protests we've seen recently with people blocking motorway traffic, disrupting major public events etc., but the law contains some preposterously vague wording that should alarm anyone who cares about the right to protest in a democracy. Is the ostensible reason sufficient? Isn't that just as oppressive?
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > For example, it outlaws "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance" - a protest that doesn't cause "nuisance" isn't much of a protest, is it? Well, it's a balancing act. The people who are being impacted by the "nuisance" might disagree about the protesters distinction between "protest" and "nuisance". Everyone should be free to air their grievances; however the right to voice your grievance does not automatically trump someone else's right to ignore it.
- nmfisher 3y ago
  > a protest that doesn't cause "nuisance" isn't much of a protest, is it? Err, not really? When I was living in Australia I was aware of countless non-disruptive protests (usually outside various Parliament Houses, but sometimes through public areas like the main street). Gluing yourself to a road isn't a human right. If you want to protest, go do it on the footpath.
  - swores 3y ago
    We already had laws against that. The new law can count those protests you've seen as a "nuisance" just because seeing/hearing the protest disturbed you as you walked past.
    - nmfisher 3y ago
      According to news articles, the law applies to someone who "intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct that obstructs the free passage of a public place". It's not about nuisance, it's about protests that prevent other people from passing through a public space. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
- rob74 3y ago
  Is this the one that was passed days before the coronation and was promptly used to arrest anti-monarchy protesters because they were carrying "lock-on devices" (one of these devices being a piece of string)?
  - ninjin 3y ago
    Yes, and you can see how the Met made a complete and utter mess not just with Republic but a number of others as well: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/17/senior-met-officer-denies-political-pressure-to-arrest-king-charles-coronation-protesters https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/17/senior-met-o... From memory, they managed to at the very least arrest: a rape prevention squad, a royalist adjacent to protesters, a study group on non-violent protest that were in a building far away from any action, and republicans that had been in contact and notified the police in advance of their intention to protest. What a complete and utter bunch of muppets, yet they keep parroting the line “But the event was once in a lifetime!” which they more or less nicked from the politicians behind the bill.
- Nursie 3y ago
  > a protest that doesn't cause "nuisance" isn't much of a protest, is it? I'm not sure anything is much of a protest. If Tony Blair can ignore a million on the street demanding the UK doesn't invade Iraq, what hope is there for any protest? But beyond that, how much a nuisance do you support people being able to make, and for what causes? Can I shut down all major routes into and out of London with a relative handful of people, because I righteously believe that gov.uk shouldn't use google analytics? Or because I want to protest mind control chips in vaccines? And if I do, should I be able to walk away with no legal consequences? I agree, the new laws in the UK are fucking awful, as is what happened to the anti-monarchy protestors a few weeks back, but equally democratic protest has to respect everyone else's right not to care and just get on with their day. If it genuinely is about getting ideas across, that is. The cynic in me sees protest as a useful way to keep agitators busy while giving them a way to let it all out and make themselves feel good...
wolverine876 3y ago
Free speech and freedom in general were, not more than 7 years ago, the highest principles of democratic societies. Civil rights were considered universal and inalienable, untouchable. (The foundation of civil rights is protecting the minority from the majority, protecting the doing and expressing of uncomfortable things. Now Orwellian rhetoric used by the Reactionary movement talks about the 'rights' of the majority, resulting in anti-rights - the rationalization of oppression.) Nobody speaks for them now. I think much of the world yearns for a leader who will stand up for them. Somehow they are cowed - by what? What is the overwhelming movement that has silenced them and cowed all these free people?
- aplummer 3y ago
  This is basically how it has always been in Australia. Someone’s freedom to protest is not more important than someone else’s freedom to use that same space to get to work, live their life, etc. Protests have always needed to be booked in advance and are essentially always approved (with police protection included for neo nazis etc). You seem to be describing the freedom of America (a right to a gun, but not a right to be free from the fear of getting shot) but it’s not like that everywhere, see even more extreme examples like the “guilty until proven innocent” case of libel in Australia. I’m not saying either way is better or worse, just that this is the status quo really for Australia.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Protests in the US generally require similar arrangements.
  - defrost 3y ago
    For others not of a Commonwealth country, UK + Australian ( + Canadian ?? ) Defamation Law is relatively unique in the assumption of "guilty until proven innocent" - although recent years have seen strong moves to reform this position. See (for example): [1] https://rabbitholemag.com/australia-is-uniquely-bad-for-defamation/ https://rabbitholemag.com/australia-is-uniquely-bad-for-defa... Worthy of note though is that otherwise > In many respects, Australia compares well with other liberal democracies. Australia’s Freedom Score (95 out of 100) is on par with or better than countries like the UK (93/100), New Zealand (99/100), Canada (98/100), Germany (94/100), France (89/100), and the US (83/100). The country regularly ranks high on freedom indexes and democracy indexes and all sorts of human rights and civil liberties metrics. [1] Australia is considered to have greater than 10% "more freedom" than the USofA by some third party rankings.
harles 3y ago
The title here is misleading (the original wasn’t great, but calling it a “ban” is even worse). It looks like this just ramps up penalties for already illegal activities, such as blocking major roads (as recently happened). Pretending this bans something new is disingenuous.
- suddenclarity 3y ago
  I'm glad they do. It was major news in my country last year when these activists blocked ambulances carrying at least one patient with life threatening injuries. According to the police, one ill patient transported in a regular car died but the family declined to participate in the crime investigation due to it being close to election. These actions of stopping transport because someone wants to feel good while others die are beyond stupid.
snehk 3y ago
It's anecdotal, but the people I know who absolutely support this kind of speech and these "disrupptions" are the first in line to complain about the speech of others. They're the ones who have campaigned for years to ban any kind of speech they deem offensive or hurtful. And they wouldn't allow the same kind of "disruptions" when it comes to topics they don't support. They'd ask for laws to restrict that. At least here in Germany these protestors are the whiniest people when it comes to dealing with others while crying the loudest about anything and everything. Maybe it's different in Australia but that's what I noticed over here.
- 000ooo000 3y ago
  n=1
- Semaphor 3y ago
  > At least here in Germany these protestors are the whiniest people when it comes to dealing with others while crying the loudest about anything and everything. Yeah, I’ll have to disagree there. And the whiniest people goes to FDP members playing opposition party, in any case.
  - snehk 3y ago
    I don't remember the FDP ever introducing anything that would restrict speech. Do you have an example for this?
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      Not off the top of my head, but I’m not sure why you are asking, as I did not write anything like that in my comment.
      - snehk 3y ago
        The initial post is about speech and you replied, that's why I'm asking.
hunglee2 3y ago
Authoritarianism isn't a political system but is a technique of control. Every government is 'for the people' - until they're not
plantain 3y ago
Protests are like backburning/hazard reduction burns of forests. Banning them to prevent minor disorder tends to lead to major disorder further ahead. Democracy by its nature poorly represents minorities and protest is an important backchannel of information that some group isn't being appropriately represented, a reminder that society only functions with almost universal participation of the minorities as well.
- contrarian1234 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure mob/majority rule has been the primary criticism of democracy since the very beginning. Since the democratic murder of Socrates. The things protecting minorities are not protests or democracy, but education, with a sprinkle of "endoctrination" in socially positive values. In the USA you add on top of that what are in effect dictates from the holy founding fathers (like the bill of rights) which are worshipped like devine commandments. These things are not products of democracy but quite the opposite. Permanent rules developed by philosopher king founders to keep democracy in check Countries that lack education or "philosopher kings" seem to devolve to democratic system of majority tyranny
tastysandwich 3y ago
Unfortunately with social media we live in an age of unparalleled narcissism. Gluing yourself to a major motorway has become a quick way to gain attention and feel morally superior so you can keep feeling like the main character. Now, I'd be happy to support your gluing yourself to footpaths and freeways, as long as I have the right to remove you for obstructing my way. The problem is my options are fairly limited if I'm stuck in traffic for three hours because you're "demonstrating". A common argument in favour of these disruptive tactics is "yeah but the planet is DYING, this is an EMERGENCY!" OK, go do something about it - other than gluing yourself to the road. Go study science and engineering. Please. Because the more people working on the problem, the quicker we'll get solutions. Don't you CARE?
- nielsbot 3y ago
  The point of protesting is to spur the government to action and/or to draw attention to an issue when other options are exhausted. The inconvenience of protests is a feature not a bug. They're supposed to inconvenience you. It's called civil disobedience.
  - tastysandwich 3y ago
    And what of the ordinary folk whose lives you're seriously disrupting? The parolee for whom being late means going back to prison? The single mum who isn't a knowledge worker, and who Walmart will fire for being late? The people on their way to hospital? Beware seeing yourself as so intellectually and morally superior that other people can be used as tools for your own ends. That does not end well for anyone.
    - jamil7 3y ago
      What about them, indeed. What about the parolee's ability to protest unfair treatment or prison conditions? Or the single mum who isn't able to protest her unfair dismiss at the risk of a 50,000 dollar fine?
      - tastysandwich 3y ago
jruohonen 3y ago
In other words, the democratic backsliding throughout Western countries continues at a steady pace; the freedom of assembly seems to be now at the forefront. Australia and the UK will certainly drop in the next V-Dem measurement round (both countries are already in a slight downward spiral).
- nirimda 3y ago
  A slight downward spiral is a sight to behold. How can you even identify one? In fact, in the past 10 years, Australia has decreased 5 times, increased 4 times and remained steady once. Almost all of the net decrease occurred in one year. It's not great that there's been a net decrease, but it's hard to call it any kind of downward spiral, unless you deliberately define a "slight downward spiral" in such a way that you can mislead your audience.
  - jruohonen 3y ago
    I am not trying to mislead. What index are you specifically looking at? The composite ones are not the best for various of reasons. I see declines at various individual indices after around 2015 or so.
LatteLazy 3y ago
Protests that are not disruptive are pointless. Politicians simply ignore them. I watched millions march in an organised, peaceful, manner against the Iraq war, Tuition fees and a dozen other issues. Nothing changed, it was barely reported.
dathinab 3y ago
protest are MEANT to be disruptive IT'S THEIR WHOLE POINT this are really dark times
- nirimda 3y ago
  The point of a protest is (in a liberal authoritarian state) to change a policy or (in a democracy) to change public opinion. The mechanism is by being disruptive. But they've been so singularly useless at changing public opinion that some delusional people have concluded that the disruption is the point. It's almost certain that some mainstream electoral activity like door knocking would be more effective at changing the minds of people who disagree with you, but this is frowned upon because it involves treating those who disagree with you as a potential ally to be won over instead of a foe to be cowed.
- omegabravo 3y ago
  There's a big fat blurry line here. If someone is protesting the use of green energy by chaining themselves to an electric powered rail road track, is that okay? That's effectively what has happened but was a different cause. The cause should be irrelevant, we can't pick and chose how disruptive it can be based on how much we currently agree with it. IMHO disruptive protests are ineffective anyway, in fact they often alienate people. Effective protests are ones with clear messages and lots of coverage. You don't need to be disruptive for that, though it can help. The punishment should be the same whether it's about protesting or not.
foxes 3y ago
For some extra context: anti vaxers and fascists have been allowed to protest freely in SA for years, especially on the same street. As soon as an environmental protests target the gas company where there are connections to the current party in power, this comes in.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
qwery 3y ago
At the heart of the issue is the fact that car traffic has been disrupted. To say this is an insult to the people of Australia gives the interlopers more respect than they deserve. Do not let the terrorists win. They are without honour. Protests in Australia are for weekends and footpaths, like bicycles.

61 points by drones 3y ago

Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20230531050627/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/31/south-australia-passes-laws-to-crack-down-on-protest-after-disruption-of-oil-and-gas-conference https://web.archive.org/web/20230531050627/https://www.thegu...

arrowsmith 3y ago

Similar nonsense going on the UK with the new "Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act"[0]. Ostensibly it's been written to crack down on the type of attention-grabbing climate protests we've seen recently with people blocking motorway traffic, disrupting major public events etc., but (leaving aside the question of whether these types of protests should be stopped, or whether the existing legal structure isn't enough to stop them anyway) the law contains some preposterously vague wording that should alarm anyone who cares about the right to protest in a democracy. For example, it outlaws "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance" - a protest that doesn't cause "nuisance" isn't much of a protest, is it? https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Big-Brother-Watch-briefing-on-the-Police-Crime-Sentencing-and-Courts-Bill-House-of-Lords-Report-Stage-Fi7039.pdf https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Bi...

wolverine876 3y ago
> Ostensibly it's been written to crack down on the type of attention-grabbing climate protests we've seen recently with people blocking motorway traffic, disrupting major public events etc., but the law contains some preposterously vague wording that should alarm anyone who cares about the right to protest in a democracy. Is the ostensible reason sufficient? Isn't that just as oppressive?
lelanthran 3y ago
> For example, it outlaws "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance" - a protest that doesn't cause "nuisance" isn't much of a protest, is it? Well, it's a balancing act. The people who are being impacted by the "nuisance" might disagree about the protesters distinction between "protest" and "nuisance". Everyone should be free to air their grievances; however the right to voice your grievance does not automatically trump someone else's right to ignore it.
nmfisher 3y ago
> a protest that doesn't cause "nuisance" isn't much of a protest, is it? Err, not really? When I was living in Australia I was aware of countless non-disruptive protests (usually outside various Parliament Houses, but sometimes through public areas like the main street). Gluing yourself to a road isn't a human right. If you want to protest, go do it on the footpath.
- swores 3y ago
  We already had laws against that. The new law can count those protests you've seen as a "nuisance" just because seeing/hearing the protest disturbed you as you walked past.
  - nmfisher 3y ago
    According to news articles, the law applies to someone who "intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct that obstructs the free passage of a public place". It's not about nuisance, it's about protests that prevent other people from passing through a public space. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
rob74 3y ago
Is this the one that was passed days before the coronation and was promptly used to arrest anti-monarchy protesters because they were carrying "lock-on devices" (one of these devices being a piece of string)?
- ninjin 3y ago
  Yes, and you can see how the Met made a complete and utter mess not just with Republic but a number of others as well: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/17/senior-met-officer-denies-political-pressure-to-arrest-king-charles-coronation-protesters https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/17/senior-met-o... From memory, they managed to at the very least arrest: a rape prevention squad, a royalist adjacent to protesters, a study group on non-violent protest that were in a building far away from any action, and republicans that had been in contact and notified the police in advance of their intention to protest. What a complete and utter bunch of muppets, yet they keep parroting the line “But the event was once in a lifetime!” which they more or less nicked from the politicians behind the bill.
Nursie 3y ago
> a protest that doesn't cause "nuisance" isn't much of a protest, is it? I'm not sure anything is much of a protest. If Tony Blair can ignore a million on the street demanding the UK doesn't invade Iraq, what hope is there for any protest? But beyond that, how much a nuisance do you support people being able to make, and for what causes? Can I shut down all major routes into and out of London with a relative handful of people, because I righteously believe that gov.uk shouldn't use google analytics? Or because I want to protest mind control chips in vaccines? And if I do, should I be able to walk away with no legal consequences? I agree, the new laws in the UK are fucking awful, as is what happened to the anti-monarchy protestors a few weeks back, but equally democratic protest has to respect everyone else's right not to care and just get on with their day. If it genuinely is about getting ideas across, that is. The cynic in me sees protest as a useful way to keep agitators busy while giving them a way to let it all out and make themselves feel good...

wolverine876 3y ago

Free speech and freedom in general were, not more than 7 years ago, the highest principles of democratic societies. Civil rights were considered universal and inalienable, untouchable. (The foundation of civil rights is protecting the minority from the majority, protecting the doing and expressing of uncomfortable things. Now Orwellian rhetoric used by the Reactionary movement talks about the 'rights' of the majority, resulting in anti-rights - the rationalization of oppression.) Nobody speaks for them now. I think much of the world yearns for a leader who will stand up for them. Somehow they are cowed - by what? What is the overwhelming movement that has silenced them and cowed all these free people?

aplummer 3y ago
This is basically how it has always been in Australia. Someone’s freedom to protest is not more important than someone else’s freedom to use that same space to get to work, live their life, etc. Protests have always needed to be booked in advance and are essentially always approved (with police protection included for neo nazis etc). You seem to be describing the freedom of America (a right to a gun, but not a right to be free from the fear of getting shot) but it’s not like that everywhere, see even more extreme examples like the “guilty until proven innocent” case of libel in Australia. I’m not saying either way is better or worse, just that this is the status quo really for Australia.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Protests in the US generally require similar arrangements.
- defrost 3y ago
  For others not of a Commonwealth country, UK + Australian ( + Canadian ?? ) Defamation Law is relatively unique in the assumption of "guilty until proven innocent" - although recent years have seen strong moves to reform this position. See (for example): [1] https://rabbitholemag.com/australia-is-uniquely-bad-for-defamation/ https://rabbitholemag.com/australia-is-uniquely-bad-for-defa... Worthy of note though is that otherwise > In many respects, Australia compares well with other liberal democracies. Australia’s Freedom Score (95 out of 100) is on par with or better than countries like the UK (93/100), New Zealand (99/100), Canada (98/100), Germany (94/100), France (89/100), and the US (83/100). The country regularly ranks high on freedom indexes and democracy indexes and all sorts of human rights and civil liberties metrics. [1] Australia is considered to have greater than 10% "more freedom" than the USofA by some third party rankings.

harles 3y ago

The title here is misleading (the original wasn’t great, but calling it a “ban” is even worse). It looks like this just ramps up penalties for already illegal activities, such as blocking major roads (as recently happened). Pretending this bans something new is disingenuous.

suddenclarity 3y ago
I'm glad they do. It was major news in my country last year when these activists blocked ambulances carrying at least one patient with life threatening injuries. According to the police, one ill patient transported in a regular car died but the family declined to participate in the crime investigation due to it being close to election. These actions of stopping transport because someone wants to feel good while others die are beyond stupid.

snehk 3y ago

It's anecdotal, but the people I know who absolutely support this kind of speech and these "disrupptions" are the first in line to complain about the speech of others. They're the ones who have campaigned for years to ban any kind of speech they deem offensive or hurtful. And they wouldn't allow the same kind of "disruptions" when it comes to topics they don't support. They'd ask for laws to restrict that. At least here in Germany these protestors are the whiniest people when it comes to dealing with others while crying the loudest about anything and everything. Maybe it's different in Australia but that's what I noticed over here.

000ooo000 3y ago
n=1
Semaphor 3y ago
> At least here in Germany these protestors are the whiniest people when it comes to dealing with others while crying the loudest about anything and everything. Yeah, I’ll have to disagree there. And the whiniest people goes to FDP members playing opposition party, in any case.
- snehk 3y ago
  I don't remember the FDP ever introducing anything that would restrict speech. Do you have an example for this?
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    Not off the top of my head, but I’m not sure why you are asking, as I did not write anything like that in my comment.
    - snehk 3y ago
      The initial post is about speech and you replied, that's why I'm asking.

hunglee2 3y ago

Authoritarianism isn't a political system but is a technique of control. Every government is 'for the people' - until they're not

plantain 3y ago

Protests are like backburning/hazard reduction burns of forests. Banning them to prevent minor disorder tends to lead to major disorder further ahead. Democracy by its nature poorly represents minorities and protest is an important backchannel of information that some group isn't being appropriately represented, a reminder that society only functions with almost universal participation of the minorities as well.

contrarian1234 3y ago
I'm pretty sure mob/majority rule has been the primary criticism of democracy since the very beginning. Since the democratic murder of Socrates. The things protecting minorities are not protests or democracy, but education, with a sprinkle of "endoctrination" in socially positive values. In the USA you add on top of that what are in effect dictates from the holy founding fathers (like the bill of rights) which are worshipped like devine commandments. These things are not products of democracy but quite the opposite. Permanent rules developed by philosopher king founders to keep democracy in check Countries that lack education or "philosopher kings" seem to devolve to democratic system of majority tyranny

tastysandwich 3y ago

Unfortunately with social media we live in an age of unparalleled narcissism. Gluing yourself to a major motorway has become a quick way to gain attention and feel morally superior so you can keep feeling like the main character. Now, I'd be happy to support your gluing yourself to footpaths and freeways, as long as I have the right to remove you for obstructing my way. The problem is my options are fairly limited if I'm stuck in traffic for three hours because you're "demonstrating". A common argument in favour of these disruptive tactics is "yeah but the planet is DYING, this is an EMERGENCY!" OK, go do something about it - other than gluing yourself to the road. Go study science and engineering. Please. Because the more people working on the problem, the quicker we'll get solutions. Don't you CARE?

nielsbot 3y ago
The point of protesting is to spur the government to action and/or to draw attention to an issue when other options are exhausted. The inconvenience of protests is a feature not a bug. They're supposed to inconvenience you. It's called civil disobedience.
- tastysandwich 3y ago
  And what of the ordinary folk whose lives you're seriously disrupting? The parolee for whom being late means going back to prison? The single mum who isn't a knowledge worker, and who Walmart will fire for being late? The people on their way to hospital? Beware seeing yourself as so intellectually and morally superior that other people can be used as tools for your own ends. That does not end well for anyone.
  - jamil7 3y ago
    What about them, indeed. What about the parolee's ability to protest unfair treatment or prison conditions? Or the single mum who isn't able to protest her unfair dismiss at the risk of a 50,000 dollar fine?
    - tastysandwich 3y ago

jruohonen 3y ago

In other words, the democratic backsliding throughout Western countries continues at a steady pace; the freedom of assembly seems to be now at the forefront. Australia and the UK will certainly drop in the next V-Dem measurement round (both countries are already in a slight downward spiral).

nirimda 3y ago
A slight downward spiral is a sight to behold. How can you even identify one? In fact, in the past 10 years, Australia has decreased 5 times, increased 4 times and remained steady once. Almost all of the net decrease occurred in one year. It's not great that there's been a net decrease, but it's hard to call it any kind of downward spiral, unless you deliberately define a "slight downward spiral" in such a way that you can mislead your audience.
- jruohonen 3y ago
  I am not trying to mislead. What index are you specifically looking at? The composite ones are not the best for various of reasons. I see declines at various individual indices after around 2015 or so.

LatteLazy 3y ago

Protests that are not disruptive are pointless. Politicians simply ignore them. I watched millions march in an organised, peaceful, manner against the Iraq war, Tuition fees and a dozen other issues. Nothing changed, it was barely reported.

dathinab 3y ago

protest are MEANT to be disruptive IT'S THEIR WHOLE POINT this are really dark times

nirimda 3y ago
The point of a protest is (in a liberal authoritarian state) to change a policy or (in a democracy) to change public opinion. The mechanism is by being disruptive. But they've been so singularly useless at changing public opinion that some delusional people have concluded that the disruption is the point. It's almost certain that some mainstream electoral activity like door knocking would be more effective at changing the minds of people who disagree with you, but this is frowned upon because it involves treating those who disagree with you as a potential ally to be won over instead of a foe to be cowed.
omegabravo 3y ago
There's a big fat blurry line here. If someone is protesting the use of green energy by chaining themselves to an electric powered rail road track, is that okay? That's effectively what has happened but was a different cause. The cause should be irrelevant, we can't pick and chose how disruptive it can be based on how much we currently agree with it. IMHO disruptive protests are ineffective anyway, in fact they often alienate people. Effective protests are ones with clear messages and lots of coverage. You don't need to be disruptive for that, though it can help. The punishment should be the same whether it's about protesting or not.

foxes 3y ago

For some extra context: anti vaxers and fascists have been allowed to protest freely in SA for years, especially on the same street. As soon as an environmental protests target the gas company where there are connections to the current party in power, this comes in.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

qwery 3y ago

At the heart of the issue is the fact that car traffic has been disrupted. To say this is an insult to the people of Australia gives the interlopers more respect than they deserve. Do not let the terrorists win. They are without honour. Protests in Australia are for weekends and footpaths, like bicycles.