Page 3212 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think, of how Mr Rattenbury has condoned, in essence, the actions of Greenpeace but pointed out how quickly Mr Rattenbury no doubt would be there to condemn if a similar action had taken place against climate change scientists, if people had broken into the offices of climate change scientists, if they had smashed their computers, if they had intimidated the staff.
Do not think that this is a crime that is without victim. Do not think that the staff who have been working tirelessly, the staff who have been working for years, literally, on trying to do science, on trying to feed the starving, on trying to make sure that we have wheat crops that can feed the world, are not traumatised by this action. So when you say, “It is okay that this crime occurred, we do not mind destruction of property, the $300,000, we do not mind the break and enter, we support that,” do not forget that there are people that have been traumatised.
If I went into your office, Mr Speaker, and smashed your computers and I went into your office and ripped up all of your work and that of all of your staff, how would you feel? How would you feel about that? Would you condone my actions? Would you say, “That is okay. I know Mr Hanson does not particularly like the Greens. So that is all right. I support that unlawful action. That is all right. I do not condemn that. He can get away with it”?
This is the point: you cannot pick and choose what you will condone and what you will condemn. You are the Speaker of the Assembly. You are there to uphold the laws and to make sure that the people of the territory and the people of this parliament—and we represent all of them—uphold the laws and obey the laws. Indeed, we make the laws and we expect people to adhere to the laws. You cannot have it both ways.
You cannot make your decision to pick and choose based on severity. Where is the threshold that it is okay if it is $200,000 worth of damage or $300,000, but not if it is $1 million? You cannot pick and choose based on the motive: “It is okay. If it is Greenpeace, then I will condone it. I certainly will not condemn it. But if it was someone else, I would.”
What about the London riots? And that point has been made. Do you condone what is happening there? Do you condemn it? It is no different. The motive is different. One is a bunch of hooligans that are motivated by God knows what. And with Greenpeace the motive is different. But the crime is the same. Do you condemn that? The crime is no different and you cannot pick and choose based on the motive or the severity and you cannot pick and choose based on an ideology that you happen to favour over another ideology.
There are plenty of examples of people who conduct protests. Mr Seselja had a good example. What if, at that protest today up at Parliament House, the people who are protesting against the carbon tax that you support took illegal action? What if they stormed parliament? What if they turned a bus over and burned it? Would you condemn that? Or is that not just protest? Is that not just unlawful protest that you condone?
So the point is that you can have your beliefs, you can have your ideology, and that is fine. We all do. But what we have not chosen to do is take the responsibility and the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video