Political Crossfire Forums

[Dale]

Another meeting of economic big wigs in Melbourne this week, and once again, they were greeted by another feral protest trying to convince us that capitalism and freedom aren’t such good ideas after all. All the usual suspects were again involed - members of the Melbourne rent-a-crowd who protest more often than they wash; militant trade union types who profess their love of “the workers” but have never done a real day’s work in their life; and the world’s last remaining sad deluded Marxists, who have obviously not opened a newspaper in the last 17 years.

But the most curious group present amongst the protestors was surely the group of self-appointed “human rights observers” consisting of “human rights lawyers” from the ”Federation of Community Legal Centres” and the “Human Rights Law Resource Centre”. According to a news.com.au report this week, they were there to “scrutinise the actions of all parties involved, particularly state authorities such as police and security forces." The same report included a statement from the group’s spokesman, one Anthony Kelly, saying that "we are hoping that abuses of power and abuses of human rights don't occur."

I wonder exactly what sort of human rights Mr Kelly and his “observers” are trying to defend? Could it be the right of police to not have ball bearings thrown under their horses, or the right to not be pelted with urine? The right of private property owners not to have their property trashed? The right of conference delegates and innocent bystanders to not be physically intimidated and set upon? All of these things happened at the last big economic summit in Melbourne, but I don’t recall any concerned “human rights lawyers” condemning such behaviour, nor do I recall them leaping to the defence of the rather fundamental right of free speech as it was being attacked by those who sought to “shut down” the whole event.

When so many “human rights lawyers” have nothing better to do than defend the rights of rioters to attack the rights and safety of others, one really does wonder whether they have any serious concern for genuine human rights at all. It just goes to show that human rights and “human rights law” are two very, very different things.

[DSwain]

Dale wrote: Another meeting of economic big wigs in Melbourne this week, and once again, they were greeted by another feral protest trying to convince us that capitalism and freedom aren’t such good ideas after all. All the usual suspects were again involed - members of the Melbourne rent-a-crowd who protest more often than they wash; militant trade union types who profess their love of “the workers” but have never done a real day’s work in their life; and the world’s last remaining sad deluded Marxists, who have obviously not opened a newspaper in the last 17 years.

But the most curious group present amongst the protestors was surely the group of self-appointed “human rights observers” consisting of “human rights lawyers” from the ”Federation of Community Legal Centres” and the “Human Rights Law Resource Centre”. According to a news.com.au report this week, they were there to “scrutinise the actions of all parties involved, particularly state authorities such as police and security forces." The same report included a statement from the group’s spokesman, one Anthony Kelly, saying that "we are hoping that abuses of power and abuses of human rights don't occur."

I wonder exactly what sort of human rights Mr Kelly and his “observers” are trying to defend? Could it be the right of police to not have ball bearings thrown under their horses, or the right to not be pelted with urine? The right of private property owners not to have their property trashed? The right of conference delegates and innocent bystanders to not be physically intimidated and set upon? All of these things happened at the last big economic summit in Melbourne, but I don’t recall any concerned “human rights lawyers” condemning such behaviour, nor do I recall them leaping to the defence of the rather fundamental right of free speech as it was being attacked by those who sought to “shut down” the whole event.

When so many “human rights lawyers” have nothing better to do than defend the rights of rioters to attack the rights and safety of others, one really does wonder whether they have any serious concern for genuine human rights at all. It just goes to show that human rights and “human rights law” are two very, very different things.

I haven't seen you post before, dale, so welcome. Good post btw. There's a British lawyer in whom you might be interested - Phil Shiner - he's a real piece of work.

[Kripcat]

I was away on schoolies during the G-20 conference. I was under the impression, at least from my occasional sober glances at a newspaper, that only a few thousand people protested and the strong police presence resorted to harrasing J-walkers because they were bored. Do you have any links to articles on the protests?