I agree with the sentiment expressed by Minister Elliott, but not the way he expressed it. New South Wales is in a situation where they've had no known community transmission of the coronavirus in...
I agree with the sentiment expressed by Minister Elliott, but not the way he expressed it.
New South Wales is in a situation where they've had no known community transmission of the coronavirus in over a week - but they still have active infections (the exact number is unclear due to irregularites in the way the health authorities are recording and reporting recoveries, but it's currently stated as 348 and is almost certainly much lower).
It only takes 1 or 2 infected people to participate in these protests for the virus to spread again. And I highly doubt all the thousands of protesters will isolate themselves for 14 days after the protest. Some of them will go about their normal business, spreading the infection even further.
In Victoria, where another protest is planned, the situation is even more risky - there is community transmission happening there (albeit at very low levels, of only a couple of cases per day).
I expect a spike in cases in these two states to appear in the next week or so.
Meanwhile, the protests won't achieve anything. The treatment of Aboriginal Australians won't magically become better due to the protests this weekend. While the headline issue is Aboriginal deaths in police custody, the root causes of the problem run much deeper than that, and can't be fixed overnight, or even in a year or two. This protest won't stop deaths in custody, it won't stop poverty, it won't stop discrimination, it won't change a single bloody thing.
But it will re-activate the coronavirus pandemic. Instead of protecting people, it will possibly kill people.
Good comment, but your paragraph beginning "Meanwhile, the protests won't achieve anything." misrepresents the intention and goal of the protests. No one thinks protests are a silver bullet, but...
Good comment, but your paragraph beginning "Meanwhile, the protests won't achieve anything." misrepresents the intention and goal of the protests.
No one thinks protests are a silver bullet, but I've recently spoken to my 60 yr old mother about this and she's just not informed on the problems of institutionalised racism and violence in the police force, and protest can help that.
Yes, it's a terrible time for mass gatherings though.
Well, what is the intention and goal of protesting, if not to make change of some kind? They're surely not protesting so that things can stay the same! The goal of protests, even if it's a...
your paragraph beginning "Meanwhile, the protests won't achieve anything." misrepresents the intention and goal of the protests.
Well, what is the intention and goal of protesting, if not to make change of some kind? They're surely not protesting so that things can stay the same! The goal of protests, even if it's a long-term goal, is to change something.
Well a protest is an action of asking nicely as a population - telling politicians to focus on something by showing that its relevant. People being people, protests can only happen when a subject...
Well a protest is an action of asking nicely as a population - telling politicians to focus on something by showing that its relevant. People being people, protests can only happen when a subject is critical at the moment because a mass movement, is part of the message. The Arab Spring wouldn't have been the arab spring if it had happened spread out over time for example.
It sucks that this virus thing is here at the same time as the back-breaking-straw situation happened.
One way which Minister Elliot in this case could have done a difference then and there is for example to set up a way to directly show a link between popular but social distancing protests and political action. What would the result be if someone said "Ok this is the thing, if you all protest at home, we will set up a meeting with Aboriginal Australian equality groups and members from the currently standing government to see how the demands of the protests can be met" and include some sort of recording of that to not just show that the meeting happened but the discussion, how relevant it is etc, stream the shit out of it with protestors being present.
Just saying that its a legal issue, that the protests are protests for protests sake - misses the point and ensure that they happen.
Saying "We've made enormous sacrifices … as a father of six kids I go home to mass protests every day, I can't take my kids to my brother's house under the restrictions." is missing what a protest is and basically ensure that they will probably happen - I mean let's remember that the step UP from protests isn't voting, it's usually a tad more violent.
And also I get that its confusing since the black lives matter movement gets picked up as a random antiracist thing with unique US branding. Seen from outside it feels a bit like the McDonalds of protesting where slogans and actions gets picked up like symbols and then tried to be applied to varying situations - but even if its a Starbucks movement it is relevant in its globalized format. Hell currently its used to protest immigrant labour laws in Lebanon - and it is time sensitive. Waiting for better times and assuming it ca be picked up again easily isn't really cutting it.
Also will add that you can effectively protest alone. I just today saw a video of a one man holding a "black lives matter" sign in a parking lot. A lady called the cops on him, and on video they...
Also will add that you can effectively protest alone. I just today saw a video of a one man holding a "black lives matter" sign in a parking lot. A lady called the cops on him, and on video they both expressed the racist "all lives matter" sentiment. Effective protest.
Also today I saw a video of a young girl with only her parents in a Maryland park, putting up flyers supporting the protest. Captured on video was the assault of that family by a man who did not like their protesting. Before turning on the father, the assaulter went up to the young girl and tore the flyers out of her hand. The young girl was effectively protesting.
If someone goes out into the middle of a park, surrounded by no one, and holds up their fist or a sign, that's effective protesting. Someone may ask that someone what they did on the weekend. I went and sat in a park and protested. That's starts a conversation, and shows solidarity.
I'm trying to understand if your disdain is just for these recent protests or more general, and why. By this logic, are most protests not worthwhile, then? People often protest big issues that...
I'm trying to understand if your disdain is just for these recent protests or more general, and why.
While the headline issue is Aboriginal deaths in police custody, the root causes of the problem run much deeper than that, and can't be fixed overnight, or even in a year or two. This protest won't stop deaths in custody, it won't stop poverty, it won't stop discrimination, it won't change a single bloody thing.
By this logic, are most protests not worthwhile, then? People often protest big issues that require difficult, systematic change, which generally takes time.
Well... I've never understood the point of standing in crowds and shouting in front of empty public buildings - which is what protests mostly amount to. People arrange to gather outside their...
Well... I've never understood the point of standing in crowds and shouting in front of empty public buildings - which is what protests mostly amount to. People arrange to gather outside their local government offices, but only on a weekend when there's noone working in those offices. They hold up signs that only their fellow protesters will read, because there's usually noone else around. Then they get some speakers to shout through a megaphone at the crowd, telling them things they already agree with.
How does that achieve change?
Even the protests that march down a street or block an intersection don't achieve much except blocking traffic for a while, and maybe annoying some other people.
You know what that achieved? Absolutely nothing. Prime Minister John Howard sent in the troops anyway.
Yes, I'm disdainful of protests. If the largest protest in Australia's history didn't achieve anything, why will this protest with only about 5% of the numbers be any different?
Just because the protest you mentioned failed to stop Australia from joining the war in Iraq does not mean they are not effective. The goal of protests is not just about trying to force immediate...
Just because the protest you mentioned failed to stop Australia from joining the war in Iraq does not mean they are not effective. The goal of protests is not just about trying to force immediate change or action, and that particular goal failing does not mean they didn't do anything. Protests awaken political awareness in people, which has all sort of downstream, long-term effects (for good and ill). E.g.
A clever analysis (pdf) by economists from Harvard University and Stockholm University finds that protests do in fact have a major influence on politics, just not in the way you might think. Their research shows that protest does not work because big crowds send a signal to policy-makers—rather, it’s because protests get people politically activated.
As it turns out, protest size really does matter. According to their research, rallies in congressional districts that experienced good weather on Tax Day 2009 had higher turnouts, which led to more conservative voting by the district representative and a substantially higher turnout for the Republican candidate in the 2010 congressional election. Specifically, every additional attendee at a Tax Day rally led to somewhere between 7 and 14 additional votes for the Republican in the next election.
Protests are also a show of solidarity, which can embolden others who may be scared, or are on the fence, to speak out, take a stand, and act on their beliefs in support of the cause. And vice versa, protests can also shame those who oppose the cause, which grows more effective the larger those protests are, and is especially important when it comes to the fight against bigotry and racism.
And at this very moment we are witnessing the effectiveness of protests! Just look at all the proposed legislation, investigations, and widespread social changes that are taking place in response to what is happening on the streets right now.
I just had this thought. Scott Morrison reminded us this morning that we observed ANZAC Day by standing in our own driveways. Australians showed solidarity, even in isolation. What if the...
I just had this thought.
Scott Morrison reminded us this morning that we observed ANZAC Day by standing in our own driveways. Australians showed solidarity, even in isolation.
What if the protesters did something similar tomorrow?
Pick one public park in each local council area. Have all the protesters from that area gather in the park. They can all hold signs and do whatever it is they were going to do in the city. They can film all the protests all around the country, and upload the many videos online to make their statement.
Meanwhile, because there won't be thousands of people in one place, they won't have to crowd together. They could space themselves 1.5 metres apart in each park. And, if someone attending the protest is infected with the coronavirus, their infectious range would be limited to only a few hundred people (or less), thus reducing the possibility of a major outbreak.
P.S. I've gone to the Facebook group for the organisers, and I've sent them this suggestion.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by Minister Elliott, but not the way he expressed it.
New South Wales is in a situation where they've had no known community transmission of the coronavirus in over a week - but they still have active infections (the exact number is unclear due to irregularites in the way the health authorities are recording and reporting recoveries, but it's currently stated as 348 and is almost certainly much lower).
It only takes 1 or 2 infected people to participate in these protests for the virus to spread again. And I highly doubt all the thousands of protesters will isolate themselves for 14 days after the protest. Some of them will go about their normal business, spreading the infection even further.
In Victoria, where another protest is planned, the situation is even more risky - there is community transmission happening there (albeit at very low levels, of only a couple of cases per day).
I expect a spike in cases in these two states to appear in the next week or so.
Meanwhile, the protests won't achieve anything. The treatment of Aboriginal Australians won't magically become better due to the protests this weekend. While the headline issue is Aboriginal deaths in police custody, the root causes of the problem run much deeper than that, and can't be fixed overnight, or even in a year or two. This protest won't stop deaths in custody, it won't stop poverty, it won't stop discrimination, it won't change a single bloody thing.
But it will re-activate the coronavirus pandemic. Instead of protecting people, it will possibly kill people.
Good comment, but your paragraph beginning "Meanwhile, the protests won't achieve anything." misrepresents the intention and goal of the protests.
No one thinks protests are a silver bullet, but I've recently spoken to my 60 yr old mother about this and she's just not informed on the problems of institutionalised racism and violence in the police force, and protest can help that.
Yes, it's a terrible time for mass gatherings though.
Well, what is the intention and goal of protesting, if not to make change of some kind? They're surely not protesting so that things can stay the same! The goal of protests, even if it's a long-term goal, is to change something.
Well a protest is an action of asking nicely as a population - telling politicians to focus on something by showing that its relevant. People being people, protests can only happen when a subject is critical at the moment because a mass movement, is part of the message. The Arab Spring wouldn't have been the arab spring if it had happened spread out over time for example.
It sucks that this virus thing is here at the same time as the back-breaking-straw situation happened.
One way which Minister Elliot in this case could have done a difference then and there is for example to set up a way to directly show a link between popular but social distancing protests and political action. What would the result be if someone said "Ok this is the thing, if you all protest at home, we will set up a meeting with Aboriginal Australian equality groups and members from the currently standing government to see how the demands of the protests can be met" and include some sort of recording of that to not just show that the meeting happened but the discussion, how relevant it is etc, stream the shit out of it with protestors being present.
Just saying that its a legal issue, that the protests are protests for protests sake - misses the point and ensure that they happen.
Saying "We've made enormous sacrifices … as a father of six kids I go home to mass protests every day, I can't take my kids to my brother's house under the restrictions." is missing what a protest is and basically ensure that they will probably happen - I mean let's remember that the step UP from protests isn't voting, it's usually a tad more violent.
And also I get that its confusing since the black lives matter movement gets picked up as a random antiracist thing with unique US branding. Seen from outside it feels a bit like the McDonalds of protesting where slogans and actions gets picked up like symbols and then tried to be applied to varying situations - but even if its a Starbucks movement it is relevant in its globalized format. Hell currently its used to protest immigrant labour laws in Lebanon - and it is time sensitive. Waiting for better times and assuming it ca be picked up again easily isn't really cutting it.
Also will add that you can effectively protest alone. I just today saw a video of a one man holding a "black lives matter" sign in a parking lot. A lady called the cops on him, and on video they both expressed the racist "all lives matter" sentiment. Effective protest.
Also today I saw a video of a young girl with only her parents in a Maryland park, putting up flyers supporting the protest. Captured on video was the assault of that family by a man who did not like their protesting. Before turning on the father, the assaulter went up to the young girl and tore the flyers out of her hand. The young girl was effectively protesting.
If someone goes out into the middle of a park, surrounded by no one, and holds up their fist or a sign, that's effective protesting. Someone may ask that someone what they did on the weekend. I went and sat in a park and protested. That's starts a conversation, and shows solidarity.
I'm trying to understand if your disdain is just for these recent protests or more general, and why.
By this logic, are most protests not worthwhile, then? People often protest big issues that require difficult, systematic change, which generally takes time.
Well... I've never understood the point of standing in crowds and shouting in front of empty public buildings - which is what protests mostly amount to. People arrange to gather outside their local government offices, but only on a weekend when there's noone working in those offices. They hold up signs that only their fellow protesters will read, because there's usually noone else around. Then they get some speakers to shout through a megaphone at the crowd, telling them things they already agree with.
How does that achieve change?
Even the protests that march down a street or block an intersection don't achieve much except blocking traffic for a while, and maybe annoying some other people.
The largest protest in Australia's history was in 2003, when 600,000 people protested against Australia's participation in the invasion of Iraq, as part of a coordinated global campaign of protests. (That was about 3% of our population at the time.)
You know what that achieved? Absolutely nothing. Prime Minister John Howard sent in the troops anyway.
Yes, I'm disdainful of protests. If the largest protest in Australia's history didn't achieve anything, why will this protest with only about 5% of the numbers be any different?
Just because the protest you mentioned failed to stop Australia from joining the war in Iraq does not mean they are not effective. The goal of protests is not just about trying to force immediate change or action, and that particular goal failing does not mean they didn't do anything. Protests awaken political awareness in people, which has all sort of downstream, long-term effects (for good and ill). E.g.
https://qz.com/901411/political-protests-are-effective-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think/
Protests are also a show of solidarity, which can embolden others who may be scared, or are on the fence, to speak out, take a stand, and act on their beliefs in support of the cause. And vice versa, protests can also shame those who oppose the cause, which grows more effective the larger those protests are, and is especially important when it comes to the fight against bigotry and racism.
Not only that, but your belief that protests do nothing flies directly in the face of history. The Civil Rights Act was passed in large part as a response to the prior years of protests, civil unrest, and the hard fought progress leading up to it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement#Freedom_Rides,_1961
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/05/1964-civil-rights-battles/100744/
And at this very moment we are witnessing the effectiveness of protests! Just look at all the proposed legislation, investigations, and widespread social changes that are taking place in response to what is happening on the streets right now.
I just had this thought.
Scott Morrison reminded us this morning that we observed ANZAC Day by standing in our own driveways. Australians showed solidarity, even in isolation.
What if the protesters did something similar tomorrow?
Pick one public park in each local council area. Have all the protesters from that area gather in the park. They can all hold signs and do whatever it is they were going to do in the city. They can film all the protests all around the country, and upload the many videos online to make their statement.
Meanwhile, because there won't be thousands of people in one place, they won't have to crowd together. They could space themselves 1.5 metres apart in each park. And, if someone attending the protest is infected with the coronavirus, their infectious range would be limited to only a few hundred people (or less), thus reducing the possibility of a major outbreak.
P.S. I've gone to the Facebook group for the organisers, and I've sent them this suggestion.