[Acharis]

Ah, thanks for the clarification of hate speech Absynthe.

That the Bolt case is centered around the specific Racial Vilification Act does change things considerably... I actually did know that from skimming articles, but lazy recollection and loose association got the better of me.

Originally Posted by Versus

Violence begets violence. It doesn't matter what your cause is, or how effective your methods are. If you don't want to live in a culture that values violence, then you can't create one that considers the justification for it. Period.

WE AGREE ON SOMETHING. TAKE A SCREENSHOT!

That basically sums up my objection to the events of the eviction and other uses of force by police.

Yes the law should be obeyed. Yes some things I disagree with are the law.
But I don't want to live in a world where certain acts of violence/coercion are acceptable and justified, even from those in charge. Especially from those in charge.

(I'm aware that in most cases the police are compelled to do these things or they get fired. OK. Fair enough. But there's an amazing quote from 'Transmetropolitan' on the role of police, which is an excellent summary how I think it should be. I'll post it when I can grab the issue and find it.)

Originally Posted by Saya

I don't think the establishment enjoys love and nonviolence, it makes them look heartless. I think they love it when rioting begins because finally, they can respond in turn without looking terrible. And it accumulated to the most celebrated act of peaceful destruction, the fall of the Berlin Wall.

There is that as well. I guess it depends on the rulers and also the public support...

On that note, apparently police are starting to get a bit sick of the farce that hassling OccupyMelbourne is becoming, and becoming a bit ashamed when they act. It seems to be the council pushing them on now.

(This is only what I've been told because I was too busy running off with the tent. Um... yeah.

What happened yesterday was the police came from different directions, so the protesters simply picked up the tents and swarmed off the grounds of Treasury so the tents couldn't be confiscated.

I had a corner of the First Aid tent, we were going like the clappers down the street - then within minutes the police sheepishly left and everybody just poured back.
Now imagine that to Yakety Sax. )

I guess you have to be disruptive enough to make a stink and piss authorities off, but not give them a justification to get forceful or act in a way the public can't support.

Originally Posted by Saya

And you seem to be confusing property damage with violence. Direct action often involves property damage but no violence.

True, it's not exactly violence; but if you're got people in authority trying to hold anything they can against you, it will be construed as an act of aggression. (Unfortunately they don't seem to recognise taking or destroying protesters possessions the same way.)

Originally Posted by Saya

But again, I wouldn't think tearing down a net so you can free yourself is the same thing as violent revolution.

Yeah, it isn't the same... I guess I wouldn't grab someones camera off them to break it, but I would free myself from a net.

I feel bad about calling that guy a loose cannon now, maybe some are ok with that kind of direct action and I don't know it... but yeah, he didn't discuss it with anybody else beforehand and I wasn't the only one disagreeing.