Wrong, the greens protested against Bush, they wore black armbands and said anti-war slogans - they were kicked out for this. If the ellected representatives of the public don't get free speech what hope is there for the average Australian?
-
📚 Admin Project Update: Added a new feature to PictureBooks.io called Story Worlds. It lets your child become the hero of beloved classic tales! Choose from worlds like Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, Peter Pan, The Jungle Book, Treasure Island, Arabian Nights, or Robin Hood. Give it a try and let me know what you think!
Free Speech? George Bush's visit to Canberra
- Thread starter bobgote
- Start date
Wrong, the greens protested against Bush, they wore black armbands and said anti-war slogans - they were kicked out for this. If the ellected representatives of the public don't get free speech what hope is there for the average Australian?
Were these the Parliment representatives that heckled him? People that should lead by example, people who should know that there is a due course for actions in government?
I would also suggest you find out what fascism is really like before you start throwing the word around.
How is our government fascist again? I don't quite understand.
So, if the people that vote in this country disagree with you, they are fascist? Be careful with your words lest they cease to mean anything at all.
So, if the people that vote in this country disagree with you, they are fascist? Be careful with your words lest they cease to mean anything at all.
1. Regardless, you posted it.
2. He was voted in in a legal manner provided by our laws. I am not a Bush supporter, but I found the attempts to make a mockery of our electoral college at the point where they benefited one party to be dishonest and reprehensible. I think they should be changed, however.
3. Maybe the Austrialian government finds it to be beneficial to make sure that the US President is not threatened in any way during his appearance there. Not allowing them to speak is pretty typical, and being allowed to get close to a foreign dignitary to 'protest' is not a right allowed in any constitution in the world. They probably were banned from the senate much like many of you are banned from this forum...for bad behavior...as you said. They will live, and if they actually have anything substantive to say they will find other outlets.
Every elected majority is 'oppresive'. They want to stay in power.
He did get the majority of the votes in accordance with the electoral college. If you don't like the system (however antiquated it is) then work towards changing it.
If Australias voters were against Bush, then why did their government support the Bush? If their government is elected by their people, then they should represent them accordingly. I'd certainly agree that not every Australian supports Bush, but if they are truely against him, then they should work towards getting representatives elected that will reflect that. In most political affairs there is a certain decorum that should be maintained.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s963043.htm
http://www.teamtulsa.com/news/world/p0667.shtml
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_973012.htm
Read up. It appears the two Senators who were removed have caused concerns amongst other world leaders as well.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,7678600%5E2702,00.html
He did get the majority of the votes in accordance with the electoral college. If you don't like the system (however antiquated it is) then work towards changing it.
If Australias voters were against Bush, then why did their government support the Bush? If their government is elected by their people, then they should represent them accordingly. I'd certainly agree that not every Australian supports Bush, but if they are truely against him, then they should work towards getting representatives elected that will reflect that. In most political affairs there is a certain decorum that should be maintained.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s963043.htm
http://www.teamtulsa.com/news/world/p0667.shtml
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_973012.htm
Read up. It appears the two Senators who were removed have caused concerns amongst other world leaders as well.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,7678600%5E2702,00.html
Yes, I changed my mind about the phrasing.
legal but not democratic.
But they are being forbidden from expressing the views of the public who voted for them.
As an Australian I can't change America's legal/government system
Our government doesn't care what the public thinks.
I was going by what I heard on the news, I will check your links later. But still the senators were voted in and thus have a right to express their voter's/party's opinion.
Not forbidden, but expected to do so at the appropriate times. It was not a debate, not a forum for discussion. It was a speech for an international dignitary.
Originally posted by Elden
As an Australian I can't change America's legal/government system
I certainly hope not.
The point being, everybody played by the same set of rules, just becasue people don't like the result they complain. Change the rules.I would hope so. Who else elects them? Do they hope to get re-relected by ignoring the public? Or is this a case of the silent majority?
See the first answer above. There's a time and a place for everything.
It was held in parliament therefore the senators are meant to be allowed to comment.
There is almost no way to do so.Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
I certainly hope not.
Not silent at all, right after 80% of Australia's population protested the war in Iraq our PM said that they were an ill informed mob and he would ignore them, he has essentially commited politicAl suicide for the next ellection.
A democratic framework can be threatened from more than one direction. Those who seek stability by censorship and police cordons tend to do so because they have a fear of the response that may occur if dissenters are heard, rather than a direct fear of the military potential of a few thousand/hundred disorganised people themselves.
I say censorship because the removal of the National press under these circumstances was not healthy.
As RIII and DoM have pointed out, there are well established mechanisms for maintaining the rule of law, but at what point do these become comfortable means of ensuring that the public is denied its free and fair representation?
Clearly Australians must have felt that they were not even invited to watch, never mind participate, in a visit by a foreign power which some may feel has used its economic and diplomatic pressure to commit their soldiers to war. Whether it has done so, or fairly, is not something they are able to debate now, is it?
I say censorship because the removal of the National press under these circumstances was not healthy.
As RIII and DoM have pointed out, there are well established mechanisms for maintaining the rule of law, but at what point do these become comfortable means of ensuring that the public is denied its free and fair representation?
Clearly Australians must have felt that they were not even invited to watch, never mind participate, in a visit by a foreign power which some may feel has used its economic and diplomatic pressure to commit their soldiers to war. Whether it has done so, or fairly, is not something they are able to debate now, is it?
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
A number of points.
1. To Pontius et al, I'm quite sympathetic with your case from two angles. First, if the protester was just holding a sign, that's not something I'd object to. Second, the security walls are big enough that it is easy for a politician to fall out of touch with the public, and that's something that has been happening all too often. But if "free speech" consists of holding a sign , is it really lost if the sign were elsewhere? Security concerns are reasonable in this case, for reasons we all too easily forget.
2. And is seeing a bunch of signs "getting in touch with the public?" Be honest - most demonstrators don't represent the public. They represent a particular class of demonstrators that wants to be where Bush is for tactical reasons - e.g. because they want to ruin his free speech rights. While there is a need to be sure that politicians don't get "boxed in" or separated from the public too much, Bush has the right to sit in the White House and never come out if he wants, and he equally has the right to choose to only show up at partisan halls secured if he wants. Again, please try to explain - since when did "free speech" become the right to speak in the same place at the same time? Why can't I, by this logic, appear every week at a local church, shouting down the poor priest because I dislike his sermons? And what does that do to his free speech rights, exactly?
Elden, no offence, but your comments are partisan and a little ignorant of the rights of Parliamentarians.
1st. The Senators are not "meant to be allowed to comment" just because it's in Parliament. They are meant to be allowed to comment within the rules and standing orders of the Parliament, not "whenever they feel it's best tactically for them."
Your rules are not dissimilar to rules in Canada, or Britain, or New Zealand, those rules - to which the House Leader for the Greens will have agreed, and to which the members are bound by - are specific. In some examples, even if heckling is customarily winked at, certain speeches - e.g. speeches from the throne, speeches of resignation, and speeches by foriegn dignitaries - will be heard without heckling or interruption. Your Green Senators seem to feel that while it's alright to abide by those rules for Australians, if big cameras come by, suddenly those rules are null and void. But the truth is, the behavior you're endorsing isn't protected as free speech or parliamentary right without Bush around, so would it be with him speaking as a guest in the chamber?
If the Green Senators are saying otherwise, then they are quite simply misleading you, and you're buying it hook line and sinker.
2nd. The Senators have ample time to talk about it - by having a debate in the Senate. Has anyone restricted their freedom to do so? Nope. Pity, too, since by rights they should have been "named" and expelled from the session, but even then, their free speech rights would be preserved. Funny about that.
3rd. If they wore black armbands, fine. But if they spoke out, which they did, then return and read #1 and #2.
R.III
1. To Pontius et al, I'm quite sympathetic with your case from two angles. First, if the protester was just holding a sign, that's not something I'd object to. Second, the security walls are big enough that it is easy for a politician to fall out of touch with the public, and that's something that has been happening all too often. But if "free speech" consists of holding a sign , is it really lost if the sign were elsewhere? Security concerns are reasonable in this case, for reasons we all too easily forget.
2. And is seeing a bunch of signs "getting in touch with the public?" Be honest - most demonstrators don't represent the public. They represent a particular class of demonstrators that wants to be where Bush is for tactical reasons - e.g. because they want to ruin his free speech rights. While there is a need to be sure that politicians don't get "boxed in" or separated from the public too much, Bush has the right to sit in the White House and never come out if he wants, and he equally has the right to choose to only show up at partisan halls secured if he wants. Again, please try to explain - since when did "free speech" become the right to speak in the same place at the same time? Why can't I, by this logic, appear every week at a local church, shouting down the poor priest because I dislike his sermons? And what does that do to his free speech rights, exactly?
Elden, no offence, but your comments are partisan and a little ignorant of the rights of Parliamentarians.
1st. The Senators are not "meant to be allowed to comment" just because it's in Parliament. They are meant to be allowed to comment within the rules and standing orders of the Parliament, not "whenever they feel it's best tactically for them."
Your rules are not dissimilar to rules in Canada, or Britain, or New Zealand, those rules - to which the House Leader for the Greens will have agreed, and to which the members are bound by - are specific. In some examples, even if heckling is customarily winked at, certain speeches - e.g. speeches from the throne, speeches of resignation, and speeches by foriegn dignitaries - will be heard without heckling or interruption. Your Green Senators seem to feel that while it's alright to abide by those rules for Australians, if big cameras come by, suddenly those rules are null and void. But the truth is, the behavior you're endorsing isn't protected as free speech or parliamentary right without Bush around, so would it be with him speaking as a guest in the chamber?
If the Green Senators are saying otherwise, then they are quite simply misleading you, and you're buying it hook line and sinker.
2nd. The Senators have ample time to talk about it - by having a debate in the Senate. Has anyone restricted their freedom to do so? Nope. Pity, too, since by rights they should have been "named" and expelled from the session, but even then, their free speech rights would be preserved. Funny about that.
3rd. If they wore black armbands, fine. But if they spoke out, which they did, then return and read #1 and #2.
R.III
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Strange, I don't recall seeing 16 million people protesting the war, nor even being polled on it. The mobs on the street were and are ill informed fools; one needs only to look at their statements and agendas.
We have never been subject to mob rule, and should not start now. Having policy dictated by crowds in the streets who include school kids along for a skive, professional communists, and the flotsam and jetsam of modern society is not something that should be aspired to by a First World country. That's not what we've fought for throughout our history, that's not what we've worked for, and it certainly is not what we've voted for.
As for electoral suicide, there is no suggestion of that whatsoever, given the complete absence of a valid opposition, and furthermore the fact that the public don't really care about the Iraq issue anymore. Saying that Mr. Howard and the Coalition have committed electoral suicide is a statement that smacks of emerging from a bloody dream world, where the wistful visions of the bleeding hearts and the extremists float aimlessly about, utterly disconnected from reality.
As for the parliamentary session, this was not a question and answer time, and certainly not the place for craven attention seeking and schoolyard heckling. For breaking the protocol, the senators were rightfully dealt with under the rules.
The journalists have no enshrined rights to unfettered access to all areas and events, and nor is a press conference always a component. They are whining because they were not let loose to rake muck. The protestors have no right to protest close up whatsoever, and were kept away at an appropriate distance so they could not cause any disruption and national embarrasment.
There is a time, place and method for airing grievances, and if the procedure is followed, then it gives some validity and worth. If it is presented outside the bounds of decency and decorum, then it is rightfully ignored. So it fails in its purpose. It also brings embarrasment and disgrace upon the institution, the position and the country; if you respect the office, and put across any differences in a polite and appropriate manner, such as the ALP did, then you come across as dignified and mature. But those are two words that could never be used to describe the antics of Brown and his recent sidekick.
They are a lunatic fringe of an unrepresentative and unimportant House.
As for ruling the country with an iron fist, and denying rights, see the above reference to living in a bloody dream world. If this is a country ruled with an iron fist, then I'd hate to see how the rest of the world shapes up. You want to see an iron fist and restriction of yer precious rights? Take a look at the Darkshade manifesto. Tear gas, cluster munitions and heavy machine guns were invented for a reason, y'know.
We don't have a Bill of Rights because we are not America. We are a different country with a different history and heritage, and different core values and national spirit. We are not a rebel country built upon freedom, liberty, justice for all and all that; we share a huge amount with the US in all manner of categories, but we are not them, and do not need a Bill of Rights. We've survived so far, and survived the inept Whitlam years without one, so we are fine now.
We have never been subject to mob rule, and should not start now. Having policy dictated by crowds in the streets who include school kids along for a skive, professional communists, and the flotsam and jetsam of modern society is not something that should be aspired to by a First World country. That's not what we've fought for throughout our history, that's not what we've worked for, and it certainly is not what we've voted for.
As for electoral suicide, there is no suggestion of that whatsoever, given the complete absence of a valid opposition, and furthermore the fact that the public don't really care about the Iraq issue anymore. Saying that Mr. Howard and the Coalition have committed electoral suicide is a statement that smacks of emerging from a bloody dream world, where the wistful visions of the bleeding hearts and the extremists float aimlessly about, utterly disconnected from reality.
As for the parliamentary session, this was not a question and answer time, and certainly not the place for craven attention seeking and schoolyard heckling. For breaking the protocol, the senators were rightfully dealt with under the rules.
The journalists have no enshrined rights to unfettered access to all areas and events, and nor is a press conference always a component. They are whining because they were not let loose to rake muck. The protestors have no right to protest close up whatsoever, and were kept away at an appropriate distance so they could not cause any disruption and national embarrasment.
There is a time, place and method for airing grievances, and if the procedure is followed, then it gives some validity and worth. If it is presented outside the bounds of decency and decorum, then it is rightfully ignored. So it fails in its purpose. It also brings embarrasment and disgrace upon the institution, the position and the country; if you respect the office, and put across any differences in a polite and appropriate manner, such as the ALP did, then you come across as dignified and mature. But those are two words that could never be used to describe the antics of Brown and his recent sidekick.
They are a lunatic fringe of an unrepresentative and unimportant House.
As for ruling the country with an iron fist, and denying rights, see the above reference to living in a bloody dream world. If this is a country ruled with an iron fist, then I'd hate to see how the rest of the world shapes up. You want to see an iron fist and restriction of yer precious rights? Take a look at the Darkshade manifesto. Tear gas, cluster munitions and heavy machine guns were invented for a reason, y'know.
We don't have a Bill of Rights because we are not America. We are a different country with a different history and heritage, and different core values and national spirit. We are not a rebel country built upon freedom, liberty, justice for all and all that; we share a huge amount with the US in all manner of categories, but we are not them, and do not need a Bill of Rights. We've survived so far, and survived the inept Whitlam years without one, so we are fine now.
allhailIndia
Deity
Interesting debate. I would say that the senators were acting stupid by publicly humiliating their country in front of the US prez and the world. I would say they probably took classes from Indian legislators
Maybe if they did not turn up, their message would have gotten through in a much better fashion.
As for the protestors, I think in a democracy, everybody has a right to protest, whether it is popular or not. Indeed, even at the height of the second world war, Churchill allowed the press to criticize the war efforts when they went wrong and badly so.
rilnator
Emperor
I agree with what Bob Brown did. It may have been innapropriate but that was the only way he could get his message across.
Mr Bush seems to be very adept at avoiding tough questions. Has anyone seen him in a one on one interview with a hard hitting journalist? What is he afraid of?
If he was another Dr Matahir it wouldn't worry me but unfortunatley he's in charge of the most powerful country on earth. I think he should be held accountable for his actions and 4 years is a long time to wait to voice your opinion.
Mr Bush seems to be very adept at avoiding tough questions. Has anyone seen him in a one on one interview with a hard hitting journalist? What is he afraid of?
If he was another Dr Matahir it wouldn't worry me but unfortunatley he's in charge of the most powerful country on earth. I think he should be held accountable for his actions and 4 years is a long time to wait to voice your opinion.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Which other methods did he try, exactly?
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Every election is the only time your opinion matters under the current system. Voicing at other times through the incorrect channels is a waste. There are far more mature and productive ways of getting an opinion or point across than behaving like a four year old. Perhaps you would like to outline your improvements to the centuries old Westminster system...
It is the senators job to present the views of thier voters and party - if they said nothing they would not be doing their job. Also I'm not just agreeing hook line and sinker - I will vote for lAbour not greens.
It was ten not sixteen (my mistake)
The protest I refer to was on a weekend so if they were their it was because they wanted to be.
Flotsam and jetsam, you think most of our country is flotsam and jetsam - your reminding me of Howard's comments on the crowd (then again you probably think thats a compliment)
Most people still think he is in the wrong so he won't win next ellection.
They presented the views of their voters/party and were punished for it, that is not acceptAble when they were doing their job - why should Bush not here criticism he deserves it.
The point isn't that our journalists weren't let in it was that ours weren't and America's were - why can't our media cover stories in our country but foreign media can.
1) why should people be forbidden from having an opinion And expressing it.
2) National embarasment, no, it would make us more popular world wide (except in America)
They have as much right to express their voters/party's views as any of the other senators, just because the don't support Bush doesn't mean they may be freely censored.
I see, you prefer your "bloody dream world" to what is obviously happening in the real world.Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
As for ruling the country with an iron fist, and denying rights, see the above reference to living in a bloody dream world. If this is a country ruled with an iron fist, then I'd hate to see how the rest of the world shapes up. You want to see an iron fist and restriction of yer precious rights? Take a look at the Darkshade manifesto. Tear gas, cluster munitions and heavy machine guns were invented for a reason, y'know.
Yes, no bill of rights but their are still basic human rights.
You just lost all credibility, Whitlam is one of the best leaders our country ever has had.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
So he has the right to stop Mr Bush getting his message across in order to get his own message across? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical?
He is a politician, he is afraid of everything. Also Mr Bush does not have to answer any question he likes unless it is from a Congress committee. If you don't like it then don't vote for him. If you're not American not why should he care about you? Mr Bush is accountable to the American people and only the American people.
Freedom of speech is not and must not be an absolute right. You cannot, for example, shout "fire" in a crowded theatre unless there is a fire. You must not be allowed to simply shout down a person you disagree with be him the bloke next door or the President of the United States of America. Protestors do have a right to protest but the state retains the right to restrict that protest (i.e. permits for protest etc). Your right to protest should not infringe my right to get to work on time. Also protesting my seem like a good way to get one's message across but really it is not. Who here has changed there mind because of a protest? Who here thought one way until they saw a mob of people protesting for the other opinion? Who here is that fickle? If you want to voice disapproval of current government policy then speak to your representative. It is far more effective and it doesn't make people trying to get to work on time severely pissed off with you.
rilnator
Emperor
I can't think of any other way he could have reached such an audience. He could have lined up with all the other good little politicians and shook Dubya's hand and asked him then but Bush probably would have ignored him.
Similar threads
