Free Speech? George Bush's visit to Canberra

[bobgote]

The question of Australian free speech has arisen out of George Bush's visit to parliament in Canberra last week.

Below I've linked an article from the Sydney Morning Herald. Australian Journalists have the right to be a bit pissed off, IMO, as they were denied access to parliament for Bush's speech, and also a barbeque in honour of his visit (attended only by government MPs and senators - in a guest list that wasn't released until after constant requests from the press) while the US press corps travelling with the president were allowed to cover everything. Australian media was forced to beg for footage and photos from their American counterparts.

The article also mentions the actions of Greens senators who interrupted Bush's speech with comments about 2 Australians held against international law in Guantanamo Bay. These senators were ejected from parliament after the speech and were banned for a day (so also missed the visit of the Chinese president). To be sure their actions were poor form, but they argued they weren't given any other forum to express these opinions as Bush's visit didn't include the normal press conference or tea after the speech.

Protesters were also denied the ability to express their displeasure, being pushed far away from parliament house. Another point (not mentioned in article) is that a large area around parliament was closed off to all public access.

Australia has no bill of rights guaranteeing basic rights such as free speech, unlike America.

John Howard seems to be controlling the media with an iron fist and denying to the citizens of this country what should be rights. This is supposed to be a democracy, after all.

So what do you think of all this? I strongly encourage you to read the article linked below.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/23/1066631577337.html

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Great article. Freedom of the press is obviously alive and well despite the best efforts of Howard. With the exception of the two who challenged Bush and were later banned for a day from Parliament, the left in Australia seems to be as impotent and at a loss for words as it is here in America.

 

[Yago]

Hm, conditions like this may have made you the model-deputy-state you are ?

God dam it ! The Australian press has to go to the CNN to get news from inside Australia ?

 

[The Yankee]

Originally posted by bobgote

Protesters were also denied the ability to express their displeasure, being pushed far away from parliament house. Another point (not mentioned in article) is that a large area around parliament was closed off to all public access.

Reminds me of how protestors are pushed to a mandated protest zone half a mile away from Bush speeches or aircraft landings.

 

[Yago]

to a mandated protest zone

Doesn't political correctness require you to define those as "Free-Speech-Zones" ?

ustralia has no bill of rights guaranteeing basic rights such as free speech, unlike America.

Irrelevant, in some way. Did you practice free speech before ? The paper article incicates you still do to some extend, maybe your goverment just needs some guidance from the people. Or maybe, the majority in Australia is pretty happy with the way things are going ?

 

[The Yankee]

Ah, yes...but I'm not sure if they're even called "Free Speech Zones." And they're well out of sight...sometimes they're actually outside whatever town it is happening in.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

I remember (watching on TV) Bush's visit to Ireland. When A1 landed, the news cameras were barely even able to zoom in far enough to see the 'designated protestor zone' - or whatever. Behind a fence, a mile away, probably wasn't even on the airfield. Those high tech cameras could barely even zoom far enough to see what color clothes they were wearing.

 

[The Yankee]

Correct. They're actually lucky to have been able to zoom in....probably since it was an open, empty airfield. Usually, the news stations have another camera positioned at the protest...if they bother.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Does anyone else wince at the irony of "Free Speech Zones"? How can speech be "free" if it's contained, marginalized, and ignored? I get the whole "shouting fire in a theater" approach, but the free world is not going to fall apart because a hippie with a "No War" sign attends one of Bush's speeches. Or would that disrupt the whole insipid illusion of "Everyone Loves Bush"?

Why is the President afraid of a few protestors?

 

[shaunpress]

Originally posted by The Yankee
Ah, yes...but I'm not sure if they're even called "Free Speech Zones." And they're well out of sight...sometimes they're actually outside whatever town it is happening in.

In this case (Canberra) they were set up in a grassy area about 100 meters away from both the US Embassy and the Lodge (where the BBQ was held). They were designated by flimsy orange plastic fencing, which was real easy to knock down. As a result the protest got to the gates of both the US embassy, and almost to the gates of the Lodge (another 10 metres and I would have made it), before the police managed to hold back the march.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Does anyone else wince at the irony of "Free Speech Zones"? How can speech be "free" if it's contained, marginalized, and ignored? I get the whole "shouting fire in a theater" approach, but the free world is not going to fall apart because a hippie with a "No War" sign attends one of Bush's speeches. Or would that disrupt the whole insipid illusion of "Everyone Loves Bush"?

Why is the President afraid of a few protestors?

Fear. Pure fear. The type of fear and hate that his adminstation has been all about. More and more people are starting to see though it though.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Well, these policies are only angering the people [and the press] more... they amount to political suicide in the long term. What reporter is going to say nice things about Bush when he's excluded from all of the President's events?

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Does anyone else wince at the irony of "Free Speech Zones"? How can speech be "free" if it's contained, marginalized, and ignored? I get the whole "shouting fire in a theater" approach, but the free world is not going to fall apart because a hippie with a "No War" sign attends one of Bush's speeches. Or would that disrupt the whole insipid illusion of "Everyone Loves Bush"?

Why is the President afraid of a few protestors?

You're right. they're all ludicrous. But we did this at Howard's word, not Bush's.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Well, these policies are only angering the people [and the press] more... they amount to political suicide in the long term. What reporter is going to say nice things about Bush when he's excluded from all of the President's events?

Sadly enough, given the weakness in leadership of our opposition party, Howard will likely get in for another term.

 

[Richard III]

As I've said elsewhere, freedom of speech is not freedom of invitation; no one has the right to protest right beside the President just because he's the President. There are several million square miles of other Australian space where people can say whatever they want. And nobody was stopping those people from inviting the media to another location.

And frankly, whatever the merit of their complaints, the Green Senators' arguments are pathetic; they should be ejected from Parliament for the session, period, let alone the day. First, that's what would happen if they broke the rules in a normal session; just because the President is there is no excuse. They have a better forum than millions of Aussies do to raise issues, before and after Bush was there, so to presume that they were first in line to do so because they felt like it is a crock. Once again, the right to speak is not the right to speak constantly at every location, at every opportunity. They don't have that right in Parliament when only Australians are present, so why should they have that right when a guest is speaking? What an embarrassment to civil rights.

As someone who has worked for over 15 years in politics now, I have to say, I've never had any trouble "expressing my opinion," without having to interrupt, heckle or otherwise disrupt the free speech of others. If you have to heckle to get your views across - and, by so doing, deny people the right to hear both sides in a reasoned setting - then your only problem is sloth and a lack of creativity. And so why should your sloth be pandered to?

However, if accredited gallery reporters are traditionally given access to Parliament - which they certainly are in other Westminister Parliaments - and were then denied it, then that is a serious concern, and the one I would focus on.

R.III

 

[The Yankee]

What's even odder is that there are so many people who respond the same to people who protest or disagree.

"Well, if you don't like all the great things Bush has done, then move to Iraq, you terrorist!"




However, there should be a reminder to the President that people may think differently. He's too sheltered.....news, protests...you name it, he doesn't see it.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Sure, if people are going to heckle Bush throughout his speech, then they should be removed from the area... but what if they're just peacefully holding signs? I think R3's argument is a non-starter; removing ALL protestors from the area is either a gross generalization [assuming ALL protestors will be disorderly or disrupt the event] or a deliberate effort to quench dissent, or at least news coverage of it.

 

[The Yankee]

Yes, if you're going to charge the President or throw spitballs at him....then that's over the line. However, visible protestors I can live with.

 

[shaunpress]

As an on the spot participant, the police activity wasn't for security reasons. It was simply there to make sure that POT-USA did not get to see any protesters.

 

[Elden]

Even our ellected leaders don't get free speech, some green party senators were banned from parliament for 24 hours for critisizing Bush during his visit. Australia's government is almost as oppresive America's government.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Sure, if people are going to heckle Bush throughout his speech, then they should be removed from the area... but what if they're just peacefully holding signs? I think R3's argument is a non-starter; removing ALL protestors from the area is either a gross generalization [assuming ALL protestors will be disorderly or disrupt the event] or a deliberate effort to quench dissent, or at least news coverage of it.

It seems to me since there is no way to tell if a protester is going to be a 'civil' one or not, you have to go based off the assumption that all protesters have the potential to be 'uncivil' and thus potentailly disruptive.

If even one person out of a group of hundreds is very disruptive and has to be 'removed' that will be the focus of the evening news, not what the event was trying to accomplish. Rarely are speeches an open invitation to the masses, so there is no reason to give uninvited people (protesters or supporters) a forum to air their messages. Have them hold their own press conference. If the people are invited and have signs, then let it be. People in the AUS Parliment wore white arm bands in a sign of protest, they we not told to leave.

Please, tell me, which of the 2,000 protesters should have been allowed? Would they ahev been ones that stood quietly holding signs or would they have been ones that 'turned ugly'?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/23/apec.special.bush.australia/index.html

A massive security operation was mounted for Bush's first visit which ensured up to 2,000 anti-U.S. protesters were kept at bay.

Outside parliament during the Bush speech, an anti-war demonstration turned ugly with protesters scuffling with police.

At least three people were arrested after protesters broke through security netting near the U.S. embassy, local media reported. But they were forced back by a strong police presence.

Every recent President has kept groups separated and 'out of sight'. Why do people think it is a new thing now?