Page 1079 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
clear standards. There are laws. They should be complied with. There are legitimate forms of protest, but these are not legitimate forms of protest.” They should be condemned by leaders in this place. They should be condemned by all in our community, all leaders in our community, and if people want to get change, they should do it through the democratic processes, through legitimate processes.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.49): Members, I rise to speak today in the context of this debate because it seems there is a great fascination with my views on some of these matters. Whilst I am surprised and flattered by this interest, it is perhaps best that I spell out exactly what my views are rather than leaving it to others to interpret them for me. It seems in earlier discussions about these issues I have made an error in attempting to outline a more considered and principled position about the broader issues of protest and civil disobedience when what was required was a more specific response to the particular incidents.
I intend to elaborate on the following points, but let me start by setting out where I stand. I support the right of citizens to participate in peaceful and non-violent protest. I believe it is an entrenched and valued part of our system of democracy. I also hold the view that there is a valid role for civil disobedience in our society. In saying that, I will also be absolutely clear that I strongly support the rule of law and the fact that there will be consequences for people who break the law. I support those who break the law being brought before the courts where their actions will be judged. Finally, I do not consider the destruction of property to be either peaceful or non-violent. I will not condone violence, destruction or vandalism.
Members, history gives us many examples of where civil disobedience has been used to highlight an issue where the community holds the view that the government and even the law is wrong from the civil rights movement in the US to the global suffragette movement to more recently climate change. Governments can be influenced by vested interests and do not always make decisions that are in the best interests of the community, and civil disobedience has been a powerful way to challenge governments.
However, my commitment to the rule of law is also strong and not at all inconsistent with my support for the right of citizens to engage in protest. The rule of law should be upheld. Those who engage in such activities will come before the courts, and the courts will apply the law. That is as it should be. I do not know anyone who engages in peaceful civil disobedience who thinks otherwise. It is for the courts to review the context of what took place and administer a penalty consistent with the community’s values.
My own personal commitment to these values of peace and non-violence is long held and clearly demonstrated. In the southern summer of 2005-06, as many of you know, I was the expedition leader of two Greenpeace ships that went to the Southern Ocean to confront the Japanese whaling fleet. After three weeks of battling the most horrendous seas, we finally found the whalers. Now what you may also know was that Sea Shepherd had a vessel in the Southern Ocean that summer, and they had vowed to ram and sink the whalers. On the basis of that threat to life and property, I refused to reveal the coordinates of the location of the whaling vessels to Sea Shepherd, despite
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video