Red Rag

Gareth was pre-emptively upset by news that a protest outside Philip Ruddock’s house would go ahead. He threw a couple of the usual tired insults at the protestors, and predicted that the protest would be violent. So what happened?

The police reneged on the accepted interpretation of the terms of the Notice of Intention to protest, and blocked off Ruddock’s street. There is some question as to whether they are in contempt of court for doing this, but they’ve just guaranteed the protestors will be very specific about where they’re going next time.

Even though the protest was stopped at the entrance to Ruddock’s street, the TV news still used the phrase “HOME INVASION” in their titles. Likewise, the Sydney Morning Herald headline was Marchers storm Ruddock’s home. It didn’t happen, nor was it the protestors’ intention. The first line of the article continued this spin:

Police formed a human barricade at the Sydney home of Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock yesterday to stop a protest march from reaching his front door. (My emphasis.)

It’s not until the fifth paragraph that we learn what really happened:

Three people were arrested when they tried to break through the police line formed 100 metres from Mr Ruddock’s front yard. (My emphasis.)

The same misleading attitude is found when we consider the various claims of “violence” breaking out — they don’t appear to be backed up by anything. The most detailed description of what occurred is in this article: “some pushing and shoving as protesters tried to force their way through.”

A scan of the photos on the internet reveals very little. In one picture, the cameramen appear to have stepped in between the police and the protestors, while in other photos the police don’t look like they’re under a great deal of pressure. The closest I could get to a violent incident was this photo:

Note that it is the policeman who is pushing the woman. All in all a pretty pissweak attempt at violence. That’s pretty much confirmed by the officer in charge:

Supt Mennilli … conceded the alleged assault by the woman could have been verbal.

Oh, it’s verbal violence now. But what of the other two chappies who were arrested?

The two men were arrested for failing to move on when police instructed them to do so.

Not violence, and possibly not even true:

The above article is sadly inaccurate. I was one of the men arrested for ‘breach of the peace.’ It isnt true to say that I was arrested for failing to move on as I was given no such direction. In any event, the police dont have move on powers under the legislation in respect of apparently genuine demonstrations.

The police insist that tthey complied with the court order because it gave the protestors a right to be on Philip Ruddock’s street. It seems strange, then, that they can order a protestor to move on from the site of the protest.

One of the most reported spin-offs from the confrontation was Alexander Downer’s comment that “I don’t think we should have a situation in Australia where the feral left are going to come and protest outside ministers’ private houses.” He just extended an open invitation to the feral left to pay him a little house visit. [Line deleted. See this post.]

The prize for the most bizarre spin must go to the Herald Sun, for this conclusion:

A lone Liberal Party supporter arrived in the street to show his solidarity with the minister.

The story was sourced from AAP. Here’s what they really said:

An unusual figure observing the demonstration was former president of the Normanhurst branch of the Liberal Party, Clive Troy… But despite being vehemently opposed to the government’s immigration policies, Mr Troy said he would continue to vote Liberal. (My emphasis.)

It takes some strategic interpretation to go from ‘vehement opposition to the government’s immigration policies’ to ’showing solidarity with the immigration minister’.

Still, this whole incident is obviously further proof of insidious, lefty, pro-ratbag bias at Australia’s media outlets…

If we train them like we trained Kopassus, Iraqi civilians had better watch out.

Tim Blair’s delightful reader, Pete, tells us his experiences with “boongs” and “gins”: “I quit my job there because I was carrying a gun and despite 20 years of discipline, I couldn’t trust myself not to shoot these mongrels.” Of course, it’s we lefties who are racist…

Sick fucks.

Taking NaNoWriMo to the next level: Southern Pearl. (But what’s with the URL?) See also Neale Talbot’s effort.

[Post deleted.] Some things just shouldn’t be said. I’m sorry for even thinking this one…

Those readers who have met Steve Edwards will no doubt remember his distinctive intonation and mannerisms. It’s much more fun to read his blog while imagining him reading it aloud; I recommend this post as a starting point.

Sounds like Tony’s been watching The West Wing… Via Jason Soon.

Hooray for sane Christians. Next step — imposing freedom of sexuality on the bigoted presbyteries.

Sam Ward posts about the Lucky Shag Bar’s venture into voyeurism. A bar manager installed a camera in the ladies’ toilets, and while he claimed it was to catch graffitists and drug dealers, some people think he’s just horny.

I was interested to read this, though, in today’s West Australian:

We hear

… that Channel 7 reporter Chantelle Toohey was on the receiving end of some good-natured advice from supporters of Nathan Brett Hodder at the Central Law Courts yesterday.

Hodder had just pleaded guilty to charges under the Surveillance Devices Act in that he placed a hidden camera in the female toilets at Barrack Square’s Lucky Shag waterfront bar.

He’ll now go to a trial of the issues, where a magistrate will try to figure out why the hell he did it.

Reporter Toohey was hanging around outside the courtroom waiting to see which exit the Hodder party would choose to leave by when one of the party broke off to ask her: Have you no respect for people’s privacy?

At least Hodder’s mates have a sense of humour…

Carita and I will be in Brisbane from 14-18 August, and in Melbourne from 18-24 August. If anyone wants to catch up for a drink, let me know.

Jonas on metrosexuals: “Stop it! Stop it now you silly fools.” Drew Pearson — that means you.

Good luck, Carita!

At Labor’s State Conference this weekend, I seconded a motion (moved by the lovely Carita) that called upon the Government to put some detail behind its Northbridge curfew policy. In particular, we called for the establishment of clear guidelines for the interaction of police or social workers and unsupervised young people; and strict definition of the terms “low, medium and high risk”, “moral danger” and “misbehaving” (which is separate to “offending”).

On Sunday morning, ABC radio ran with the issue, and they quoted yours truly:

Robert Corr, from the [AMWU], told Labor’s conference the development of the policy was haphazard and more concerned about providing media coverage for the Premier than any real desire to effect positive change.

He said the lack of consultation had been atrocious and said it was clear the Government still had not sorted out the details.

Interestingly, while the ABC noted that “Another delegate expressed concern that the curfew is racist”, they didn’t mention that the other delegate was a former senior party official and recent Senate candidate, Mark Cuomo.

The Sunday Times also took up the story; likewise, today’s West Australian referred to my remarks, though it was more balanced in its reporting:

The Labor Party’s Left faction has labelled Premier Geoff Gallop’s Northbridge youth curfew haphazard and aimed at winning media coverage.

Metal Workers Union delegate Robert Corr told the ALP State conference that the policy was couched in a law and order framework which treated young people as criminals and could alienate them.
…
Mr Corr said the lack of involvement of community groups in developing the policy had been atrocious.

“The law-and-order rhetoric plays well with the audiences of talkback radio shows but it is my hope that a Labor Government would be above such a cynical spin,” Mr Corr said.

But he praised the Government’s commitment to providing youth activities and safe places around the metropolitan area.

The party endorsed a policy calling for protocols for police and social workers dealing with unsupervised young people and more resources for indigenous and community groups.

During the conference, a week after the curfew was announced, Gallop distributed a document that padded out the curfew policy. It promised funding for community groups, the provision of youth activities and safe venues in the city and the suburbs, and ongoing consultation with all relevant agencies — pretty much everything our policy amendment called for.

It would have been fantastic if Gallop had focussed on these initiatives rather than the redneck side of the package, instead of tacking them on as an afterthought. And he still hasn’t committed to more clearly defining the terms of the policy, so that police will not treat people waiting for the train as if they were criminals.

My speech is reproduced below.
Read the rest of this entry…

Some of you may have heard my name on the radio yesterday, or read it in The West today. Longer post forthcoming…