Protests - how far is too far? | BTN High
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- We find out about South Australia’s controversial changes to laws aimed at giving bigger penalties to disruptive protesters.
Watch more from BTN High www.abc.net.au...
BTN High covers the big topics in the news for high school students across different year levels and subject areas. BTN High gives students a voice in the news, enabling them to talk about topics they care about, share their experiences, and learn more about what's going on around them.
Subscribe to ABC News InDepth: ab.co/3yqPOZ5
ABC News In-depth takes you deeper on the big stories, with long-form journalism from Four Corners, Foreign Correspondent, Australian Story, Planet America and more, and explainers from ABC News Video Lab.
Watch more ABC News content ad-free on ABC iview: ab.co/2OB7Mk1
For more from ABC News, click here: ab.co/2kxYCZY
Get breaking news and livestreams from our ABC News channel: / newsonabc
Like ABC News on Facebook: / abcnews.au
Follow ABC News on Instagram: / abcnews_au
Follow ABC News on Twitter: / abcnews
Note: In most cases, our captions are auto-generated.
#ABCNewsIndepth #ABCNewsAustralia
"protests shouldn't be disruptive"
and folks wonder why union membership is in decline... unions are disruptive, that's their entire reason for existing! so incredibly sad but predictable that a labor government would go down this path.
the right to protest is the right to democracy. especially now that labour and liberal are functionally the same, people need the power to defend their rights and advocate for change.
Is that a flashing red right turn arrow as the middle lamp on the traffic signal lantern?
When lights are out of action the amber one flashes. Those particular lights are for traffic wanting to turn right out of the convention centre loading dock so they're all right turn arrows: green, amber and red. However, traffic can also turn left on the green light so... not sure why there isn't both. It's possible the green light is full circle.
Really depends on the situation, in some situations disruption is necessary, and maybe even violence in oppressive regimes, but in regular cases protestor should try more civil methods to get their message across.
Although that said the new laws in SA are overly harsh.
Who gets to decide which situations are worthy of disruption. Zealots like Daniel Andrews or going back a bit Joh Bjelke-Petersen maybe?
@@tonybloomfield5635 that’s the question we’re all asking
Australia has been losing his democracy for years.. starting with the guns that it went downhill
Personally, I think that fine increase is going way too far. Simply doubling it would have been fine. (That said, I have mixed feelings about protest because I got caught in the middle of one that turned violent.)
Protest is a broad term. Crypto and cash are probably best form of protest against government.
The downward spiral into 1984.
Left wing mickey mouse
Protesting helped Indigenous Australians to gain recognition and be counted as a part of the wider Australian society. Unbelievable, can you imagine? After all, it was their land that was invaded by those colonialist Europeans.
Sounds like standing anywhere in public to peacefully protest is out then, cos you'd always technically be obstructing anyone who wanted to walk exactly where you're standing...
With true protest there's no such thing.
what?
@@ryan266846 If protest is the only way for change, then there is no such thing as too far.
Let them demonstrate however THEY want to. That’s the point.
If democracy was working then there’d be no protest….
Simples.
protests are an integral part of democracy.
"...peaceably assemble..." Constitution does not protect violent protests.
@@williammessenger9637 what the does the constitution have to do with anything?
@@williammessenger9637 Exactly, that's why all police that agitate protesters should be in jail.
By that logic, any counter protesters could do what ever they like to the protesters they disagree with.
Extreme leftwing channel
Here's the problem with these changes and statements like "Protests are welcome but they must be done in a way that is conscious of the rights of other people in our community". The purpose of a protest is to get the attention of the people at large, and the only real way to do it is to disrupt the general flow. If you outlaw disruption, you outlaw protest.
Great to see climate, protesting and civil disobedience getting plenty of air time recently (due to the courageous actions from XR and the repression from the state).
My issue with this story is the continued referencing to people's "views" and "opinions", when it comes to climate, there is empirical evidence, it's not a matter of views.
The disruption caused by blocking a road is nothing compared to what is coming if we don't act on climate
When a resource company has the premier's brother on their team it's easy to get legislation rushed through in the dead of night.
The Summary Offences Act is a bad cop's best friend.
Hanging from a bridge isn't crossing the line. Now had they firebombed the bridge then yes, Australia's idea of what is "over the top" and "over the line" is defeatest to the purpose of protesting.
Most protests achieve nothing, especially when it's only a handful of extremists, regardless of how disruptive they are. Where protests can't be ignored is when large numbers, or essential workers are involved.
A protest doesn't have to be disruptive and should be out of site, not like there's an existential emergency going on. This report was weak and dumbed down .
Protests are supposed to be disruptive, if they aren't what'd the point, they can be ignored
"...peaceably assemble..." Constitution does not protect violent protests.
we need to izolalate one to open the brain to see what is happening there.
Probably been reading the climate science I guess.
Great to see climate, protesting and civil disobedience getting plenty of air time recently (due to the courageous actions from XR and the repression from the state).
My issue with this story is the continued referencing to people's "views" and "opinions", when it comes to climate, there is empirical evidence, it's not a matter of views.
The disruption caused by blocking a road is nothing compared to what is coming if we don't act on climate
That's your opinion Sam, and no doubt you agree with it. Then there are those, like me, who accept the science but reject the fanatical almost hyper-religious and ineffective approaches with solutions, that for the most part, cause massive harm to the most vulnerable in society and have almost zero impact on the wealthy and political elites. Unaffordable energy impacts devastatingly on the poorer people and private jets at Davos is a blatant example of the later group suffering no share of pain. That's my opinion and I agree with it!
One could argue that terrorist attacks are a form of protest, but no one in their right mind would consider it an acceptable form of protest. There is definitely a line to be drawn.
I think marching or gathering in a public place and making some noise and a bit of a scene is fine. A march can block a street for a bit, but it eventually moves on and there's always another road to take to get around them. A gathering in say a park or other public place that doesn't physically blockade anyone from getting somewhere is also fine.
Blockades are fine on strict conditions that 1. emergency personnel and emergency vehicles can get through without any obstruction, and 2. the blockade is highly targeted (eg: blockading the entryway to a company site in protest of that company's activities is perfectly fine, but blockading a public street, bridge or highway is pointless unless the protest is specifically about that particular road, bridge or highway).
Vandalism and damage to property, violence of any kind, and anything that can cause physical harm to anyone including the protesters themselves, and blockading people that have nothing to do with and no say in the situation is going too far, and going too far only serves to turn members of the community against the protesters rather than draw support for them. I think that's where the line needs to be drawn.
These companies are committing ecological vandalism. Violence is bad, but what would you do if someone was beating your mother in front of you? Would you go ask that person's friend for help, or would you step in and do something, anything?
@@tezismith8795 You're trying to use chalk to win an argument about cheese. If I saw anyone being assaulted I'd call the police. See, your point doesn't work. There are many ways to protest against something, many avenues with which to take, there's no excuse for violence other than being too hot-headed to think of any other more effective method.
@@grandmothergoose great counterpoint! I have been destroyed by facts and logic and have been convinced to see the light
Terrorist attacks aren't protests, they're designed to scare people not to change their minds. That's why it's called terrorism
Also the extinction rebellion protest from Adelaide that triggered their legislation was timed to disrupt a meeting between executives from a particular fossil fuel company. They weren't just trying to annoy people.
What a pacifist you are! No causes for violence. You should tell that to Peter M so that he can close down SA's sub manufacturing immediately 😂
There is no Too far in protests
If you want various forms of more costly more permanent types of responses....
If protests are not going to work
Well fires in the hills
Dam targeting
"...peaceably assemble..." Constitution does not protect violent protests.
Considering I have no idea what they are protesting, it's not working... and if I do find out and it disrupts the city working it usually puts me off supporting their cause.
The exception is strikes that show what it would be like without them, or organised marches like BLM, where we have forwarning.
The point of these protests is like strikes - it's to show that something as minor as a person hanging from a rope can be so disruptive, imagine how disruptive it would be for us to see wildly increased rates of flooding, bushfires, droughts, diseases, loss of nature...
Just because the media isn't telling you the actual point of these protests, doesn't mean there isn't a point.
A flash flood doesn't just block roads, it kills people, destroys houses, destroys livelihoods. These protests are warnings. Listen.
Well you want the right of protesters to be protected... How about the right of the people that this people disturb? They means nothing? How about the damage being done to public or private property?
I dunno man, climate change is going to cause a lot more damage than a few stained buildings and broken windows.
what about the damage being done to the environment? we all live on this planet, nobody lives in that Santos building, and that "damage" can be fixed with a damned hose. "damage". lol.
@@tezismith8795 I am asking about normal people lives? Do this people damage environment than you do? Sadly plenty of damage to private and public property than just normal a water base paint...... You aware that this kind of protest that put off alot of neutral people that sympathize with your cause... That's why more and more extreme protest needed... Just look at PETA....
Cut grannies rope!