Page 1080 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
being attacked ferociously and publicly by Paul Watson both at the time and subsequently in his book. To this day, I stand by that decision and consider it to be a testament to my personal commitment to peace and non-violence.
Similarly, I disagree with recent Sea Shepherd tactics in the Southern Ocean of throwing glass bottles filled with rotten butter on to the decks of the whaling vessels. Whilst on the face of it, some might consider this to be a harmless annoyance, the real possibility of crew members being injured by these projectiles in my view moved this outside the bounds of non-violent protest.
Regarding my earlier statements of my position, some have suggested that, as a legislator, because I have become a politician I should suddenly not believe in something that I clearly believed in before being elected to office—that is, the right of citizens to engage in peaceful direct protest or civil disobedience. While it may be politically expedient for me to disavow these views, it would be hypocritical to do so. But apparently it is untenable for anyone who is involved in the process of making laws to not condemn those who break the law.
However, as I said earlier, peaceful and perhaps even unlawful protest and the rule of law can stand side by side. Interestingly, some figures on the conservative side of politics understand this, too. Former Liberal environment minister, Senator Ian Campbell joined the board of Sea Shepherd, who I have spoken of today, and who are well known for their controversial protests. Further, during the last term of the Assembly, Liberal MLA Steve Pratt was a regular. Attacking what he called the scourge of graffiti, Pratt took direct action and painted over what was, in fact, a legal artwork. Later in the debate over the gas-fired data centre at Macarthur, Pratt was quoted as saying, “If push comes to shove, I will chain myself to a bulldozer to stop this going ahead.”
My research has failed to reveal any commentary from Mr Seselja condemning either of these actions. Perhaps he gave it a wink and a nod. The double standard of the approach Mr Seselja took at that time and the stance he now takes is astounding. That said, I must be frank in saying I would not have expected Mr Seselja to condemn Mr Pratt’s actions, because, as the dictionary tells us, to condemn is to pronounce an adverse judgment on another. Personally, I am not interested in judging others. I may disagree with them; I may argue with them; but leaping to judgment offers little.
For those members who had a religious education—and I believe there are a few in the chamber—you will, in fact, no doubt, recall the entreaty from the bible, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” I am happy to leave it to the courts to pass the judgments in these matters, for this is the task we assign them.
Let me turn to the recent protest at the Parkwood battery hen facility. There are a number of matters to address here. Firstly, there has been some suggestion I was too slow to offer comment. Without boring you all too much with the minutiae of my diary, I can simply inform the Assembly that through the course of the Tuesday evening after the incident, I had a number of engagements which meant I did not see the news nor go on the internet.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video