-
📚 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
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
1.) Ten million people on the streets, or in the polls. Quite an interesting claim, and not one that has been backed up by any source. Don't worry, I can wait until you dig one out from Green Left Weekly.
2.) I was not referring to simply the one protest that you may or may not have been conveniently referring to. There were many, all ineffectual, and plenty were patronized by school aged children, some as young as 10, who had no idea what was going on. But, it was an opportunity to get out of class, and cutting school is all part of the point of education.
3.) How quaint! You can play with colours. That's very clever of you.
I never said anything of the sort. I never said there, nor have said anywhere that the majority of the country is flotsam and jetsam, nor anything close to having such a meaning. Such a distortion of one's words and intent is the result of either incompetence in referencing and reading, or sheer malice mongering. In either case, it is patently false.
4.) You have never, in all your interesting posts on this and other matters, been able to back up your assertions of the outcome of the next Federal election with a single shred of proof or evidence. All that is ever produced is some vague statement about "most people still think he's in the wrong" that has all the impact of a soggy piece of rotting cabbage. That should be nominated for an award for outstanding vaguery in the field.
5.) As said in one's reply, there is a time and a place and a method for appropriate airing of greivances or presenting opposition. The ALP came out of the affair looking decidedly mature and composed for a change (this is only so because of the depth of their opposites from the Senate); the Greens embarassed themselves and the nation with their childish antics and violations of parliamentary protocol, the rules that they are bound by.
6.) So what? Security reasons, and also an appropriate example of turnaround being fair play against the Canberra press gallery.
7.) There is no talk nor suggestion of forbidding and banning opinions, nor even the expressing of those opinions in an appopriate and civilized manner. How it is expressed is different. Behaving like a bunch of ferals and trying to disrupt a state event is not acceptable, and is not allowed.
8.) Again, a lovely assertion with no evidence to back it up. It gives ammunition for those who would characterize Australia as illmannered, uncouth convicts, given much to bluster and inappropriate behaviour, as but one example. Quite ironic, given Mr. Brown is quite the opposite of some of the previous exponents, such as Ian Chappell's men.
9.) Just as much right, which is no right outside of the proper bounds of protocol. They also have responsibilities to the Australian people, and to the history and tradition of the nation and parliament to act with dignity and in an appropriate manner. There were plenty of vehmently anti-war individuals in the ALP, and the Democrats for that manner. They chose more appropriate means of conducting themselves, and registering their opinion. In doing so, they showed the vast difference in the validity and discipline of their parties compared to the Green rabble.
10.) The bloody dream world referred to was the one where Australia is ruled with an iron fist, the government is virtually fascist, as is that of the US, eight out of every ten people living in the country went on protest marches, the Howard government is 100% doomed to fall at the next election and the bleeding heart rants and causes of Keating and Phillip Adams still have relevance. But you are quite welcome to enter into any discussion onto any points of those causes, particularly your hobby horse of the election prediction.
11.) We have no basic human rights enshrined in law or Constitution that are applicable to this situation. There are rules, strictures and protocols about how a Member of Parliament is to behave. End of story
12.) Oh dear. I've lost all credibility in the view of a teenage leftist. Well, that's it folks, I guess I better go gas myself, as there's nothing left in my life now.
You are welcome to debate the issue at any time; certainly it would be interesting, given the weight of history, the 1975 election result, and some of the quips about printing more money that emerged from his croney Cairns. The liberal social agenda will always endear Whitlam to the starry eyed and rosy glasses wearing of the ALP and points left; the truth is quite different.Tsk. One feels like one should wash one's hands. Beating a child with neither stick nor word has never been this unfulfilling.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
So the other 364 days of the year these Senators are gagged from saying what they want? No, of course not. They wanted to voice their opinion when Bush was voicing his for the press coverage and only for the press coverage. This is not a matter of freedom of speech. This a matter of arrogant, publicity-seeking, ill-mannered, raised in a barn, no good politicians. Turn off the cameras and shut down the newspaper presses and lets see the real protestors.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I hereby demand the right to be permitted to add a "gloss" to all of your posts before they are posted, and will submit this request to the moderators.
Deny me this right and you are by your own admission a ridiculous hypocrite.
R.III
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
You know, you've made my complaint with this crystal clear, insofar as all I know is that they interrupted. Great "message." Did they have a question? What was the question? Beats me, no one has raised it sofar. So, as usual, because of the childishness of people (the Senators) who don't understand democracy, the message gets lost in favor of a discussion of the means of delivery. Just like Quebec, and Seattle: who remembers the arguments against the WTO? All I remember is smashed windows and tear gas.
No one suggested they should have lined up and kissed Bush's butt. If they'd arranged a boycott of the session, for instance, I can guarantee they'd have gotten the same airtime as they did with this crap. The difference: they would have been able to make a case. Beleive me, there were alternatives. I think it's telling, however, that none were tried. These guys didn't want to make a case. They just wanted to interrupt George Bush. Political machismo. Some freedom. Some speech.
And also, Elden, it is the Senators job to represent their constituents within the rules of Parliament, not to do "whatever it takes" - for if it were the latter, the system would not work with all the frickin' shouting.
R.III
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
The Senators don't have constituents; they are elected using proportional representation, so no one has to claim the buggers outside of State bounds.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Which makes the residents of their State constituents by any reasonable definition.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
No, not quite. They do little for the states, and are usually made up of those that have merited the ultimate punishment of being sent to stay in Canberra for most of the year. I say hanging is more humane.
Akbar
evil fundamentalist
Wasn't Steve Waugh invited to the barbecue as well? My respect for him wou have gone up if he had gone and heckled Bush....
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Elden, that is quite literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard in this forum.
LISTEN:
They have the right to speak simultaneous to Bush outside parliament, to reporters scrummed in the halls of parliament, to respond during parliamentary debate after, to a press conference during or after, to demonstrations outside, to constituents on their doorstep, or at any one of hundreds of millions of places or opportunities on that day or on intervening days.
So how, exactly, is your statement true?
You didn't. But if your believe in freedom of speech includes freedom of interruption, then I demand the right to interrupt your posts before they are posted. If you don't grant me that right, then clearly your beliefs aren't beliefs at all.
I'm waiting, yes or no? Can I add to your posts or not? I mean, hey, I believe I can still express myself AND wait my turn, but I'm only trying to follow your "progressive" lead in expanding my rights here. I'd hate to sell out my constituents.
R.III
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Yes, he was. And I'm sure that if you had let him know, Tugga would have instantly abandoned all previous decorum and disciplined behaviour, and let fly with a string of violent words in the direction of Mr. Bush. After all, it is one of only two flaws he has - getting out in the 90s, and having to obey the every word and command of a Bangladeshi teenager.
Silly boy. He keeps that type of language for the cricket field.
rilnator
Emperor
I'll beleive you when you tell me what they are. Do you think someone would have started a thread on the topic of 'Bob Brown boycotts speech!' Do you even know what the senator was Heckling Bush about?
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I work in politics, I could name 40 or 50 ways to have achieved the same coverage; don't make me bore you with the details, it's quite easy. Not only that, but given the fact that Bush was speaking anyway and that aussie reporters were outside, it's quite clear that it would have in fact been EASIER than normal to get "into the story" if they'd simply called the frickin' reporters for a rebuttal.
I don't know what they were heckling about, and that's their fault for heckling. So far, all they seem to have gotten is a thread about how rude they were or not, not about their message, so their effort was - by the standards of politics - ineffective and self-destructive.
If they'd said something profound outside the speech, they'd probably have done better for their cause in the long run, in my view; the idea that short-run TV coverage of a demo or "political action" like the above helps you is a myth, because it doesn't persuade anyone new, it just preaches to the converted - e.g. people who think it's macho to interrupt a president who's a guest speaker.
I don't know what they were heckling about, and that's their fault for heckling. So far, all they seem to have gotten is a thread about how rude they were or not, not about their message, so their effort was - by the standards of politics - ineffective and self-destructive.
If they'd said something profound outside the speech, they'd probably have done better for their cause in the long run, in my view; the idea that short-run TV coverage of a demo or "political action" like the above helps you is a myth, because it doesn't persuade anyone new, it just preaches to the converted - e.g. people who think it's macho to interrupt a president who's a guest speaker.
rilnator
Emperor
My respect for Steve Waugh could never go up. Hes already at the pinnacle. The greatest ever cricketer. And don't even bother tryin to debate that!
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Grace...Waugh is up there, but not quite. I'd put Warnie in front of him in terms of greater impact, and also if he got hit by a car, Warnie would take that greater impact.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
First, that's a big assumption. Secondly, it's untrue; as I've noted above, the fact that many media were themselves excluded means that they would be more likely to cover events outside. Which reporters would as a matter of course anyway, incidentally.
If your absurd beliefs were followed, then every Senator would have been allowed to heckle each other, at length, through the whole speech, and through every other debate. You realize that, right?
Please explain in greater detail.
I'm not proposing to edit out your comments; on the contrary, I just feel that mine aren't truly freely expressed unless I'm right there in your post. So in fact, what I'm proposing is actually better than the rude actions you're defending; unlike your champions of free speech, I won't actually be talking OVER you as they did Bush, I'll just be speaking "beside" you.
R.III
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
Can we perhaps see the loud vociferation of a number of Australian representatives as censorship of Mr. Bush? At least let's be civil about criticizing ol' Dubya in an official assembly. 
I wonder if anyone in the Australian Parliament heckled Hu Jintao during his speech this past week...? I mean, the leader of one of the world's largest and still quite brutal dictatorships, you'd think someone would feel strong enough to make a public comment.
Similar threads
