-
That's actually pretty scary. Governments are taking this way too fucking far now.
-
@Siam said in Aussie Politics:
I think every Australian should watch this and then make up their minds from there.
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the whole thing.
Having got that out of the way. Being in your pyjamas, pregnant, having an appointment etc. aren't valid reasons to not be arrested for a crime. The police have a search warrant we can assume is safely constructed and duly authorised by a magistrate (admittedly not a high bar). And someone looks to have found out that Facebook isn't a lawless zone where you get o to say whatever you want without consequence.
-
Police say the woman was arrested in relation to a social media post She was taken into custody and charged with incitement Regional Victoria is under stage 3 stay-at-home orders, and gatherings are banned "Any gathering of this nature is in blatant breach of the Chief Health Officer's directions and puts Victorian lives at risk," police said. "Those still thinking of attending the protest … can expect a swift and firm response from police. "We will have no hesitation in issuing $1,652 fines to anyone who is breaching the restrictions on the day, or making arrests if necessary."
Seems a bit over the top to me, but equally, if there is a pretty clear guidance from the authorities, you're taking things into your own hands playing around on social media.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@Siam said in Aussie Politics:
I think every Australian should watch this and then make up their minds from there.
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the whole thing.
Having got that out of the way. Being in your pyjamas, pregnant, having an appointment etc. aren't valid reasons to not be arrested for a crime. The police have a search warrant we can assume is safely constructed and duly authorised by a magistrate (admittedly not a high bar). And someone looks to have found out that Facebook isn't a lawless zone where you get o to say whatever you want without consequence.
There is the law and there is THE LAW.
You are correct, of course, but wouldn't it have been better to just scare the lady a bit and then let off with a warning?
If the post is on the march, the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime, IMHO.
-
I actually agree with you (and I'd like to make that clear, as I believe there is a huge gap between intention and behaviour)
However if we look at the BLM discussion, we can see that having (let's say) more than 80% of ppl who show up with intentions of peacefully protesting won't help if 20% of ppl show up with the intention of rioting.
Her removing her post won't stop ppl from showing up (the action that led to her arrest has already been carried out).
So, taking that lens, would the police not be serving their best interest (and possibly/hopefully the public's) by jumping up and down on anyone posting about their intentions to break rules/guidelines imposed by the state and asking others to join them?
It's tricky. I'm not sure where I stand. I'd prefer the cops just arrested anyone who showed up (i.e., behaviour), but as incitement is a chargeable offence regardless of success, and includes the action of stating an intention to break law and encourage others (which, well, she did), then, well, she's fucked, isn't she?
Personally, I don't think this has anything to do with a Dracula situation.
-
@gt12 Interesting. I wonder how your points stack up legally there. Given that
- The post is a private post as it states at the top
- Post is peaceful protest
- All must social distance
- All must wear a mask.
If people turn up and incite violence, then I'd imagine the above should leave Zoe in the clear?
EDIT Now that I've seen the post, this does have little in common with the Dankula situation.
-
@MajorRage said in Aussie Politics:
@gt12 Interesting. I wonder how your points stack up legally there. Given that
- The post is a private post as it states at the top
- Post is peaceful protest
- All must social distance
- All must wear a mask.
If people turn up and incite violence, then I'd imagine the above should leave Zoe in the clear?
I don't think incitement only applies to violent conduct for this charge. She is/was essentially inciting ppl to pursue a course of conduct that will, if acted upon, involve the commission of an offence by the person incited, and she intended the event to happen.
EDIT Now that I've seen the post, this does have little in common with the Dankula situation.
I don't know, but with respect to:
- The post is a private post as it states at the top (no idea, but perhaps it was public at one point? Or she was dobbed in?)
- Post is peaceful protest (how far is that legally protected in Victoria under a quarantine scenario? It's not the USA so I'm interested to hear about that)
- All must social distance (won't matter if it's not allowed by law/guidelines)
- All must wear a mask (won't matter if it's not allowed by law/guidelines)
I think the second point is the interesting one.
-
Maybe one of the Aus based Ferners can comment, but from afar it does seem like the worm of public opinion is slowly turning around in regards to state border closures and the Victorian lockdown. I've seen Morrison using a lot of 'by Christmas' type rhetoric and he probably is right if there isn't clarity around the border issue as people start firming up their holiday plans to see family this will become powder keg - especially for the states.
Also enjoyed Abbott's contribution this week putting his old Health Minister hat on for the first 20 minutes of this video. He really is a different cat.
-
I love this site, because it makes me read and research shit I would never interact with. My reading of this is that these rights are not as protected as we may think.
According to the Human Rights Law Center (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/580025f66b8f5b2dabbe4291/t/5d4a8829c6696600018e5ac2/1565165620922/Your-advocacy-guide-Protest-Rights.pdf) which states that its aim is to "This guide aims to help people in Victoria to protect their rights under Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities to gather together and peacefully protest.": There are a whole range of laws that can affect protests and protesters including laws limiting what protesters can say (such as offensive language or racial vilification laws) or affecting how protest can be conducted (such as trespass, property damage or obstruction of traffic laws). *As explained above, the Victorian Government can lawfully limit protest rights if it has a good reason for limiting the right and if it limits the right in a reasonable way.*
This is explained a bit by the *Review of the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act 1958*, which [states that](https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/archive/sarc/Unlawful_Assemblies_Act/Report/UAP_Ch2.htm): 2.4 Despite the generally acknowledged importance of the concept, a "right" of assembly is not recognised in Australian law.[5] The common law recognises the right of assembly only as a "residual freedom". This means that a person is free to take part in an activity to the extent that there are no restrictions on it.[6]
So, do we have lawyer who is prepared to go check the common law on this?
-
I just don't get the arresting at home without warning and taking all devices on the property. BLM organisers were free to hold their protest twice however the second time they were warned and then arrested on the day (and then given refuge in parliament by a greens MP). I know this is a different situation but it looks bad.
You can protest the death of a foreign violent criminal who assaulted a pregnant woman before robbing her...but if a pregnant woman was to talk about holding her own protest outside of a stage 4 restriction area... well that requires an arrest at home.
-
@gt12 said in Aussie Politics:
Police say the woman was arrested in relation to a social media post She was taken into custody and charged with incitement Regional Victoria is under stage 3 stay-at-home orders, and gatherings are banned "Any gathering of this nature is in blatant breach of the Chief Health Officer's directions and puts Victorian lives at risk," police said. "Those still thinking of attending the protest … can expect a swift and firm response from police. "We will have no hesitation in issuing $1,652 fines to anyone who is breaching the restrictions on the day, or making arrests if necessary."
Seems a bit over the top to me, but equally, if there is a pretty clear guidance from the authorities, you're taking things into your own hands playing around on social media.
It's an interesting double standard from authorities given all of the BLM protests during lockdown. Not sure I remember the organisers of those getting arrested and their houses searched? Or did authorities deem their cause righteous and so above the law?
-
@No-Quarter I think this explains it
-
@MajorRage said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@Siam said in Aussie Politics:
I think every Australian should watch this and then make up their minds from there.
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the whole thing.
Having got that out of the way. Being in your pyjamas, pregnant, having an appointment etc. aren't valid reasons to not be arrested for a crime. The police have a search warrant we can assume is safely constructed and duly authorised by a magistrate (admittedly not a high bar). And someone looks to have found out that Facebook isn't a lawless zone where you get o to say whatever you want without consequence.
There is the law and there is THE LAW.
You are correct, of course, but wouldn't it have been better to just scare the lady a bit and then let off with a warning?
Not if the consequences are as the authorities deem. One only has to look at the damage wrought on blameless individuals in Victoria as a result of others, so why would you encourage other people to freely mix when you've specifically told them not to? She's inciting people to commit a crime and wishy washy nonsense like "don't get violent and practise social distancing" isn't an excuse.
The only issue I have is the clear double standard with the BLM protest. Did they arrest the organiser of that?
-
@gt12 said in Aussie Politics:
I love this site, because it makes me read and research shit I would never interact with. My reading of this is that these rights are not as protected as we may think.
According to the Human Rights Law Center (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/580025f66b8f5b2dabbe4291/t/5d4a8829c6696600018e5ac2/1565165620922/Your-advocacy-guide-Protest-Rights.pdf) which states that its aim is to "This guide aims to help people in Victoria to protect their rights under Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities to gather together and peacefully protest.": There are a whole range of laws that can affect protests and protesters including laws limiting what protesters can say (such as offensive language or racial vilification laws) or affecting how protest can be conducted (such as trespass, property damage or obstruction of traffic laws). *As explained above, the Victorian Government can lawfully limit protest rights if it has a good reason for limiting the right and if it limits the right in a reasonable way.*
This is explained a bit by the *Review of the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act 1958*, which [states that](https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/archive/sarc/Unlawful_Assemblies_Act/Report/UAP_Ch2.htm): 2.4 Despite the generally acknowledged importance of the concept, a "right" of assembly is not recognised in Australian law.[5] The common law recognises the right of assembly only as a "residual freedom". This means that a person is free to take part in an activity to the extent that there are no restrictions on it.[6]
So, do we have lawyer who is prepared to go check the common law on this?
That's correct. It's easiest to acknowledge that you don't really have rights in Australia. The High Court has even ruled in Dietrich v The Queen that you don't have the right to a fair trial (the accused had no legal representation).
Rights aas we commonly understand them as provided by legislation and as such have limited application.
-
@Rembrandt said in Aussie Politics:
I just don't get the arresting at home without warning and taking all devices on the property. BLM organisers were free to hold their protest twice however the second time they were warned and then arrested on the day (and then given refuge in parliament by a greens MP). I know this is a different situation but it looks bad.
Or you could argue that, having seen the potential outcomes of the first protest, police started arresting at the second protest. After that, and a further escalation in cases, they decide to nip things in the bud.
And the Social media user responsible broadcasts it live which eloquently makes the Police point: this shit is illegal and we won't be putting up with it any more.
I once got pulled over for going the wrong way up a left-only turn from a side street. Because the fuckwit in the next car (who also got busted) was out of his vehicle and mouthing off at the copper responsible, I got away with a verbal caution and nothing else recorded in my history. Does that make it unfair to him or anyone else who paid a fine and lost their license?
Laws aren't concrete, they're open to interpretation. Conflating the cause with the outcome is a slippery slope.
-
@NTA Absolutely and there is every chance that that is why this was different from the blm protest. Its the public perception however which can be galling. My non political mates in London were forwarding this through this morning asking wtf is happening in Melbourne. Apparently they had something similar over the weekend, an anti lockdown protest where the organiser was given a £10,000.00 fine but a blm protest allowed to go ahead. I think there is every chance that this footage will only encourage a larger protest.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Politics:
Maybe one of the Aus based Ferners can comment, but from afar it does seem like the worm of public opinion is slowly turning around in regards to state border closures and the Victorian lockdown.
From what I see there is a lot of fatigue around lockdowns in general BUT a lot of Victorian public opinion is positive toward the lockdown, given the stats are moving in response.
Keeping in mind that is my observation from Sydney. So largely anecdotal and I take whatever the news says with a teaspoon of salt.
The border closures are a pickle for the people living in the areas immediately around the restrictions, though there are many exemptions and categories to get around those.
Overall I think we're going to see a bit of public opinion shift as the weather warms up. Today in my part of Sydney it'll get to 30degC and so getting outdoors and travelling etc. will change the slant of opinion where people were probably OK with missing out on commuting in winter.
I've seen Morrison using a lot of 'by Christmas' type rhetoric and he probably is right if there isn't clarity around the border issue as people start firming up their holiday plans to see family this will become powder keg - especially for the states.
Morrison - as usual - has been quite happy to spout empty rhetoric about how he's just trying to help keep the country afloat but that his hands are tied. It is the perfect zone for a guy who isn't actually very good at his job.
In the early days he got a lot of points for bringing the state governments together, and getting a bit of stimulus off the ground. He's got 2 issues: very few people believe he's interested in the welfare of Australians as a collective; and everyone else in his government continues to be a giant fuckwit.
Also enjoyed Abbott's contribution this week putting his old Health Minister hat on for the first 20 minutes of this video. He really is a
different cat.complete fuckwitFixed.
Great opposition leader in a time of pissweak Labor unity. Had no idea what to do when he finally got on the horse.
"Maybe we just let old people die and lift the lockdown" is in direct opposition to what economists are actually saying.
Oh unless you're Adam "Creighfish" Creighton of The Australian, whose tenure as economics editor for the country's flagship broadsheet (tho I think its not broad any more) is interesting, given his questionable grasp of statistics.
-
@Rembrandt said in Aussie Politics:
@NTA Absolutely and there is every chance that that is why this was different from the blm protest. Its the public perception however which can be galling. My non political mates in London were forwarding this through this morning asking wtf is happening in Melbourne. Apparently they had something similar over the weekend, an anti lockdown protest where the organiser was given a £10,000.00 fine but a blm protest allowed to go ahead. I think there is every chance that this footage will only encourage a larger protest.
Agreed. It is a tricky situation as you need to balance sending a message versus effective law enforcement, and all this bleeds over into epidemiology where the cops are really just taking orders.
I find it laughable that some of these bogans think anything is "private" on Facebook though.
Aussie Politics