Comments
It is somewhat irrelevant for Duncan Kerr to praise the forebearance of the Australian Federal Police in dealing with a timber protest as an argument for Gunns to display forebearance in dealing with green protestors.
Perhaps unlike the Australian Federal Police, green groups are themselves notorious for squeezing everything they can out of the political and legislative process if it will stall whatever those groups are opposed to.
The clogging of government processes with letters and complaints, often not merely petty but also invalid, is stock-standard conservationist behaviour.At worst, the movement is getting back what it has persistently sown - had it stuck to battles that mattered instead of so frequently being vexatious, it would have more credibility in objecting to Gunns’ actions in the way that Kerr suggests.
It is also unsatisfactory to argue that the AFP’s decision not to stop a protest because of concerns about possible escalation is an upholding of “the right to protest”.
Obviously it was a pragmatic decision only. Whether it would have been more pragmatic for Gunns to abstein from confronting protestors in the courts in the way they have done remains to be seen.
That all parties in this debate support the right of free speech and protest to some extent has not been seriously challenged, despite hysterical attempts to label those opposing the protestors as enemies of free speech and protest in general.
Rather, the issue that should be explored, as Kerr suggests, is how far you are entitled to go in exercising the right to free speech and protest before you should, legally, forfeit it. There are always ways to protest effectively without going anywhere near breaking the law.
The opinions of the courts concerning what is legal and what is not will make far more illuminating reading than what Kerr refers to as the opinions of “most of us”. Also, a thorough examination of how SLAPPs work (and don’t work) in legislatures where they are common would show many of Kerr’s concerns to be groundless wheel-reinvention of a sort too common in Tasmanian political debate.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 16/01/05 at 12:22 PMThe complexity and ubiquitous nature of our laws are such that EVERY individual is guilty of breaking them, even frequently.
Add to this the fact that we have a legal system that provides extraordinary privileged access to the rich and virtually no representation to ordinary citizens and where does that leave us?
In a situation where virtually any ordinary ‘Joe’ can be targetted for legal action at some time in their lives. The likelihood of this happening increases if you dare to protest.
Meanwhile the ‘regulatory authorities’ in Tasmania provide a cover for the premeditated and daily breaches of law in our forests.
But it’s NOT the law that the ‘forest’ corporations fear but rather the compelling changes needed in industry practice to protect human health and the environment. Profit before all else is the order of the day.
Posted by Brenda Rosser on 17/01/05 at 01:38 AMDuncan Kerr’s wet-noodle lashing of the Gunns 20 writ was more helpful to that company than Greg Barns’ customary spray of bile.
In all respect to Duncan’s legal/ethical expertise, a SLAPP suit is in no way comparable to the the sanctions available against the minor offences often involved with public protests. A SLAPP is by definition an exploitation of the greatest flaw in our justice system - the paramount role played by sheer financial clout.
Gunns’ lawyers probably know full well that their ham-fisted writ has much less than 23% success rate statistically enjoyed by SLAPP plaintiffs. But winning is not the object. Winners often have no more than 2/3 of their legal costs picked up by the losers ( as a deductible business expense). The remaining third they must foot can cost a battler his/her house on top of the years of anxiety.
SLAPPS are so manifestly a cynical abuse of the justice that a number of US states have outlawed them. Can anyone imagine either of Tasmania’s major parties following suit? Or even granting the truth an equal footing with corporate lies?
No way. Instead we have the leak of plans for two Gunns pulp mills, guaranteeing the accelerated ruin of most of our natural environment for the benefit of Gunns.
Elsewhere it has been learned that the Auditor-General will be reviewing the still seemingly fraudulent $200 million land swap between the Government and Forestry Tasmania. But he informed me he will issue a report only if he finds something amiss. If not, we must presume that all is in order.
In Tasmania, it seems, you can fool a majority of people all the time.
John HaywardPosted by lhayward on 21/01/05 at 12:27 AMThe Gunns Ltd lawsuit is about to get Australia-wide exposure on ABC Radio National this coming Tuesday.
The “Law Report” is an excellent program examining legal matters in layperson’s terms, and this episode will feature a story on the massive legal action recently launched against 20 environmentalists and environmental organisations.
It will include interviews with Senator Bob Brown and Mrs Lou Geraghty who, together with 18 other defendants, are being sued for around $6.3 million by Gunns Ltd, one of the biggest and richest woodchip corporations.
The program airs twice on Tuesday 25th January at 8.30 am and is repeated in the evening at 8.00 pm.
If you miss it, nevermind, because you can hear it on-line wherever you are around the world at any time after Tuesday by clicking on this website:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn
...and follow the links to the “Law Report”.
For more details on this frightening lawsuit, and what you can do to help the defendants, click on
http://www.bobbrown.org.au
or
http://www.wilderness.org.au/Posted by Neil on 22/01/05 at 12:57 AMTo add to Neil’s comments I will also be appearing on the Law Report next Tuesday.
Posted by Greg Barns on 22/01/05 at 03:39 AMFRENCH POLISHER STRIKES
As a Tasmanian I feel compelled to make some kind of stand, about the dreadful mismanagement of the forestry resources of this beautiful state. As a self-employed French Polisher and Antiques Restorer, I have worked for 30 years predominantly with Colonial Cedar furniture and internal architecture, as well as with the minor endemic species timbers of Tasmania such as Huon Pine, Blackwood, Musk, Casuarina and others. My knowledge of these timbers and the forests they grow in is extensive. I learnt my highly specific skill at my grandfather, Vaughan Ratcliff’s side as a young man.
I decided to go on strike because of what is happening here. Taking to the streets of Launceston, I asked the public questions that concern me most about these issues:
- Is the Premier Paul Lennon prepared to guarantee that the precious minor species timber will not end up being fast freighted to Japan, via Malaysia, from the marvellous new veneer mill in the North-West?
- How many significant archaeological Aboriginal sites are being destroyed daily by the wood-chip regime?
- What percentage of native forest of Tasmania actually belongs to the citizens of Tasmania?
- What percentage of profits from Gunns Pty Ltd actually lands in Tasmania?
I am not alone in my concerns. Many people I speak to feel disempowered like myself; that in matters such as forestry and water management, we have no control. I am tired of sitting back and accepting what we are being dished up by the Patriarchy. It seems that there is an enormous division in the society of Tasmania, and I believe that the answer to the problems caused by this lies in a more open and accountable discussion from all sides.
Don’t let the same thing happen to Tasmania’s forests as happened to the Toonis Australis in NSW.
Vaughan Fisher
Posted by Vaughan Fisher on 02/06/07 at 09:13 AMSounds like somebodys got splinter mouth Vaughan.
Posted by Benjaminjardine on 05/06/07 at 02:46 PM
