Minutes ago approximately 30 riot police began to surround an occupied building in Sydney, Australia’s Central Business District.
There are 120,000 unoccupied residential buildings in Sydney yet rental and purchase prices are inaccessible for most.
Police Rescue officers have swarmed the back of the building with chainsaws and canines, in an to attempt to break through the inside barricades.
A large number of human rights supporters from the Occupy Sydney movement lined one side of the street, Riot Police lined the other.
Demonstrators were chanting, “This is not a police state! We have the right to demonstrate. The whole world is watching!”
The question remains for Sydney residents, are the police in place to protect their interests or the interests of an elite minority?
After the occupiers of the building were forcefully removed, police began to kettle peaceful Occupy supporters, members of the media and public indiscriminately.
“Brutal force was used instantaneously and without specific direction. I was standing inside a doorway and without warning, riot police violently pushed all of us down the street mechanically. Frankly, it was frightening,” said Larissa Payne, Occupy Sydney participant.
Occupy Sydney continues their call for a reassessment of the current state of Australian democracy.
To speak to a media contact, please call Larissa on +61411295904 or Nikkita on +61410863417.
–
www.occupysydney.org.au
www.youtube.com/occupysydneymedia
www.livestream.com/occupysydneyhq
occupysydneymedia@gmail.com
@occupysydneyGA
@occupysydmedia
Loading...
74 Responses to “Riot Police Brutally Move in on Peaceful Australian Demonstrators”
While I sympathize with the point being made, I personally feel this wasn’t an appropriate way to go about it. This of course in no way justifies brutality in the police response. But they can’t possibly have expected to be allowed to occupy a privately owned building.
Why was it unoccupied? Because our government / reserve bank deems the property so valuable that no average australian can afford it?
What a fukin joke, we have homeless when there is enough housing for EVERYBODY and then some.
Fuck the establishment, they are actively ruining our lives and nobody with money or means to fight them is doing so.
And why not Scott? Please don’t be another puppet of the elite and thier dog the media rehashing rhetoric on our “illegal” activities… This was a peaceful occupation, yet again violated and brutalised by the powers that be… Go you good thing, brave new world… Occupy Love…
“And why not Scott?” Because it’s not yours to occupy, Jarrah, it belongs to someone else. Peaceful or not, those inside were trespassing. If you don’t believe in property rights then tell us, at least then we’ll all know where you are coming from politically, and, of course, we’ll all know that any pretence at representing or including the 99% is entirely bogus as most people do believe in property rights.
Rubbish!
You can break the law peacefully? Break and enter is still break and enter! You break the law, you get what you deserve. If you broke into my property, even if all you did was sit on the floor and sing kumbaya. I’d still want the police drag you out by your ankles
How is it not illegal to occupy a privately owned building? Morally legitimate maybe, but you can’t possibly suggest it’s legal.
I guess sometimes its okay to break certain laws to highlight gross inequality. From accounts I heard they kept the place clean. If it were a single mum, hiding from an abusive partner – would we be so mean. Who’s voice is more legitimate? I think homeless people have little avenue to tell their story and highlight their concerns. Its all NGOs and politicians, not the people themselves.
I understand landownership is a contentious issue but Scott makes a very valid point. Until laws change illegal occupation isn’t the way. Occupy public space/arrange a deal to legally occupy private space.
With mass we can voice a message, with clever decision making en mass we can make a change.
Tyranny from the left! So what if one doesn’t believe in property rights, and most people do? This is about diversity. I like to have same sex relations–most people do not–does that mean I’m out too? Don’t give in to factionalism, and it’s ok to believe anything you like as long as it isn’t hateful! Liberate your minds before you walk the streets! No, said situation couldn’t possibly be legal, this is civil disobedience however, you don’t go up to the master’s door and say all “please” and “thanks.” Personally, I don’t really care if I inconvenience anyone with the wealth to own extensive property while the point I’m making is I’m practically starving in it’s shadow. sorry for the relative book.
[Personally, I don’t really care if I inconvenience anyone with the wealth to own extensive property while the point I’m making is I’m practically starving in it’s shadow]
Not wanting to belittle your own situation but where should property/ownership rights stop/start then?
Would a street person from Calcutta be able to take your belongings? Your phone? Your bed? Your food?
Wealth is a relative concept.
How many of these properties were small businesses that went broke in the GFC?
how many of those properties were small businesses that went broke in the GFC? wow! i’m angry about that too!
i’m also angry that nothing got fixed. the system that caused that crisis didn’t get repaired one bit! we’re still running the same economic model built on enldess growth year after year, while we live on a planet that isn’t getting any bigger. anyone ever stop to think how long that can last? to me the GFC is a serious warning sign that collapse is coming if we don’t find a better way of living on this planet.
Would you say that white occupation of aboriginal land is legal scott? What makes this occupation illegal? Is it the fact that somones name is written on a peice of paper that makes it his/hers?
“Is it the fact that somones name is written on a peice of paper that makes it his/hers?”
Yes, that’s about the size of it.
Jarrah, You don’t need to say “Please don’t be another puppet of the elite and thier dog the media.”
As it stands, it not legal to do this. I wish that it was legal for those who need a suitable residence. This is not like a squatter, and I don’t think this reflects to well on Occupy Sydney.
I love that you kept the poor homeless guy in Martin Place for days on end. You should help him the fuck out before you all tramp on about homeless situations. Which are by and large mental health related… not so much housing shortage. I agree with what you’re going but you seriously… FSGUSUUSBHSBWHUVKJA
What are you talking about??
That was an excellent and empowering action. Quite a lot of fun, and we were defiant even as the riot cops shoved as down the street. What a great way to take over and empty building that has been sitting empty for three years and do something so crazy like, live in it!
– “And why not Scott?” Because it’s not yours to occupy, Jarrah, it belongs to someone else. –
Only by law, but not by a fact. And the law is clearly unjust for rigidly enabling the protection of absentee ownership. It artificially rises up the price of residency, thus artificial scarcity for human beings to live decently.
The law makes ownership a fact. If you don’t like it, form a political party and fight the next election with proposals as to what you’d do differently or join a major party and persuade it to change the law to force property owners to do what you want them to do.
Whatever you might say, you do live in a democracy and have the power to change things if you can persuade enough people of the righteousness of your cause. As a tiny minority, taking the law into its own hands just demonstrates that the Occupy movement is most definitely not “what democracy looks like.”
–The law makes ownership a fact.–
That’s a ridiculous statement. If the law says the world is flat, it doesn’t mean the world is flat.
–If you don’t like it, form a political party and fight the next election with proposals as to what you’d do differently or join a major party and persuade it to change the law to force property owners to do what you want them to do. –
Real change does not come from political parties. That’s a historical fact. Especially for the fact that our electoral system is pretty much dysfunctional. Only political parties that are favorable to Corporations are the ones that are able to gain power. The political parties are there to give you an illusion that you have a freedom of choice. The represent the plutocracy, not the people.
– Whatever you might say, you do live in a democracy and
have the power to change things if you can persuade enough people of the righteousness of your cause. –
No, we don’t live in a democracy. Wake up, we live in a Corporate oligarchy that chooses the political parties for you.
Sorry but you are suggesting someone form a political party then state that real change does not come from them?
Corporations employ people.
Unions hold the power in Australia – the same people that march with you on the weekends.
They voted the PM in, not the people.
They select the candidates.
How many votes did the socialist alliance get the last time they ran?
“–The law makes ownership a fact.–That’s a ridiculous statement. If the law says the world is flat, it doesn’t mean the world is flat.” Silly, silly point, the law would not declare the world to be flat, but it is the law of the land that gives and supports property ownership and when you try and deny that fact by occupying someone else’s property you get turfed.
People can and do choose to vote and elect independents and minority parties, it’s just that the majority choose not to.
“Corporate oligarchy” Good grief!
–Silly, silly point, the law would not declare the world to be flat, but it is the law of the land that gives and supports property ownership and when you try and deny that fact by occupying someone else’s property you get turfed.–
What do you mean exactly by “law of the land”? Absentee ownership is an artificial, man-made concept, backed up by purely by the use of force. It is an unnatural concept that serves the privileged minority to maintain their rule over the powerless.
–”People can and do choose to vote and elect independents and minority parties, it’s just that the majority choose not to.”–
No. First of all, the public are forced to bear the cost, and risk of Corporations (through Corporate personhood), while at the same time Corporations gains all the profit (this is the reason why Corporations dominate the economy). Corporations then finance political parties that offer policies that are most beneficial to these Corporations (The western world, such as Australia, are usually dominated by two political parties, that are basically Corporate whores). It’s no rocket science that the more well financed the political parties are, the more it is more recognised by the public. Therefore it creates barriers to entry for other political parties that does not serve Corporate interest. Secondly, choosing somebody to rule you (party politics) every several years or so does not mean you have a freedom of choice. Freedom to choose your master ain’t freedom at all.
– “Corporate oligarchy” Good grief! –
That was one great argument.
The law is a human devised concept. All property rights are protected by the threat of force against those who don’t respect them. I own property and one of the things I expect my taxes to do is to protect my rights to my property. Office buildings tend to be owned by people who don’t live there. Why that particular office building is vacant I don’t know, but as a general principle, owner’s of buildings like to have paying tenants. I don’t suppose Occupy Sydney bothered contacting the owners.
If some people can vote for independents or minority parties, then all can, they choose not to. The Labor Party is stacked with ex-union officials getting their reward for bankrolling and supporting the party. If it is was corporate friendly I doubt we’d have the current labour laws, a carbon dioxide tax or a mining tax.
“Corporate oligarchy. Good grief! That was one great argument.” I’m sorry, I don’t know how to argue against teenage lefty soundbites.
i keep asking the same questions and no-one who wants to criticise occupy seems to have an answer, perhaps you do?
western society runs on constant growth economics. we must be mining, manufacturing and selling more each year then we ever have before.
We live on a finite planet. Can you not see that we can’t endlessly increasing how much we manufature and sell? It’s not sustainable and it will inevitably lead to collapse. If you don’t believe me, see 2008. Nothing has been fixed or repaired in the system of economics that caused the FIRST GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS IN HISTORY. That’s kinda a big deal.
Australia happened to have a massive surplus thanks to the selling off and hoarding of John Howard. Whether you like him or not, this is a fact. Now, thanks to wall st, we have no surplus. Does this not make you angry?
What about the next GFC, which analysts are saying is coming, just take a look at greece and europe right now. We have no huge surplus in the bank to get us out of shit next time. We might be ok now, but we won’t weather the next financial storm.
Am i just imagining this? Please, by all means correct me.
Jono, economic growth does not in itself require that we use finite resources but while they are the most cost effective then it makes sense to do so. We can also create economic growth through technological and productivity improvements. Some economic activity requires few physical resources. At some point, and in some current circumstances, recycling is a better option than digging up resources.
The GFC was primarily associated with reckless mortgage lending that was not correctly valued. While there are still some carry over effects, the underlying problem has been removed through some lenders failing and others converting the debt to state debt. The current problems in Europe are to do with sovereign debt, i.e. countries borrowing more than they can afford. If a major European economy goes under it will affect global markets and we can expect to feel some consequences. We don’t have the surplus because the Rudd government threw money around like confetti on ill-conceived and poorly managed schemes.
What are Occupy Sydney’s solutions to the points you raise?
and there was no legal way you could possibly have made the same point?
No there isn’t. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare. Direct action is the way.
Yep, it’s working well so far.
It sure is – the media this has got all around the world, largely focussing on the housing crisis for marginalised people when swathes of buildings sit empty is AMAZING. Nothing like it I have seen previously. It was a brave stand.
Well done OS yet more bad publicity for your ‘movement’.
The press are all over it this morning.
Of course all you are is really the ‘loony left’.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that
Big business is not allowed a voice because they support the right side of politics.
However if you are with the socialist alliance, green left or a unionist who decides who gets preselection and who is PM then you don’t have enough power.
That’s really what you stand for isn’t it?
It’s about political power for the left.
How many of your ‘core’ members are associated with these groups?
What does it matter? Why do you need to tear people down? Why is this movement such a threat to you?
Great empowering action.
Occupy Sydney needs more brave autonomous direct action such as this and less pandering to mainstream media.
On property rights here’s some Noam Chomsky:-
“Property rights are not like other rights, contrary to what Madison and a lot of modern political theory says. If I have the right to free speech, it doesn’t interfere with your right to free speech. But if I have property, that interferes with your right to have that property, you don’t have it, I have it. So the right to property is very different from the right to freedom of speech. This is often put very misleadingly about rights of property; property has no right. But if we just make sense out of this, maybe there is a right to property, one could debate that, but it’s very different from other rights.”
I can’t seem to reply to sirbucktea directly…
[...the privileged minority to maintain their rule over the powerless.]
ABS 2006 figures show that 70% of Australian households either own or are purchasing their home. This figure has been very similar for the last 40 years.
So how are you representing the ’99%’ with the above statement?
Oh that’s right you are simply stating Socialist Alliance propoganda… You’re not the real 99% are you?
No, you do NOT have any right to occupy a privately owned building without permission. You are trespassing pure and simple. You do NOT have the right to assault police who are only doing their job and despite your fantasies are not operating to some corporate agenda. You are breaking the law so what do you expect? If you have to be physically removed from somewhere, after being given the opportunity to leave peacefully, don’t cry foul. You are misguided in your approach, find another way to get your message across and you’ll get more support from everyday people, not just the socialist left element.
Of course occupying an empty building is not a right: it is a statement, to raise awareness of soaring social injustice, of greed, of generalised unconcern by people’s problems, of the epidemic of lack of compassion. These people are heroes, they put themselves at risk to raise awareness, and to bring sanity to society. If you can’t see it that way, I feel for you, for your life will be little, empty, and lonely.
If you can’t see better ways of making such a statement how is your life?
Don’t lose sleep on my account, Ziggy, my life is just fine and dandy.
Ziggy, the real heroes are out there in the community, in the soup kitchens and op shops, the charity organizations. They toil away quietly, never asking for recognition or praise and they ARE making a difference in people’s lives. I wonder how many of these protestors have ever done any tangible community work? Ziggy, there is injustice everywhere in the world, sitting down and whinging about it is not going to fix anything.
Many occupy participants do these things too, all forms of community work and activism are not mutually exclusive. I don’t understand why you are so angry about people trying something new? Why is this so threatening to you?
Hey Maria, I’m not angry and I’m certainly not threatened. I’m merely making a statement, isn’t that called free speech? It seems that because I don’t agree with this specific action ie breaking the law, that i cannot possibly have a legitimate point of view. Very presumptuous of you in a forum that should promote free thinking and respect of differing opinions.
Maria, I can’t speak for ‘the real 99%’ but I believe much of the criticism here (which the site admin kindly consent to be published) stems from a sense of frustration that myself and others feel with the Occupy Sydney movement.
On the face of it you’re sitting on a campaign that has the potential to be huge: to cross partisan and class divides and represent a genuinely populist groundswell of discontent. We’ve got a big middle class in this country that frankly aren’t doing it that tough, but nonetheless are smart enough to realize how close to the brink of economic hardship the GFC took us. It shook us all up a bit. The company I work for nearly went under. I saw a lot of other good companies go under in my industry (advertising). I think there’s still the feeling amongst the population that someone got off this Scott-free. And we’d like someone to blame, and some reassurances steps have been taken to see it won’t happen again.
The more I follow the OS movement the more I despair of this movement gaining popular appeal. You take one step forward with a peaceful and well-attended rally on Saturday, and then two back with a scuffle with police later that evening, followed by a few more steps back last night. Like it or not support for this movement is lost or won in the media. And judging by the chatter I see in the mainstream media, on Twitter and on forums the movement is losing badly at the moment.
I think the public perception of the movement, correctly or incorrectly, is that it is comprised of highly radicalised activists. In mainstream circles this is not a compliment. Judging on the pro-OS comments and language of the articles I read here, and what I saw firsthand of the Saturday rally I don’t think that’s too wide of the mark. Within the movement there appears to be a genuine nativity of just how radical it looks, and how damaging to the cause that is. That’s what much of the criticism here is about: frustration. We WANT the movement to succeed. It raises important and timely points. You just appear to be doing everything you can to alienate the wider population.
It’s really not that hard to turn this around:
* keep the actions in the public domain
* keep the speeches on topic (save the Free Gaza speeches for a Free Gaza rally for example)
* avoid jingoistic phrases as such ‘police brutality’, ‘puppet of the elite’, ‘capitalism’, ‘corporate greed’, etc
* appeal to a broader range of groups for support, such as religious and non-political groups
* outlaw fake funerals for democracy and other acts of street theatre hyperbole
* if individuals act outside pre-agreed boundaries then don’t condone their actions regardless of the police response
* wear a dreary suit to media events when speaking for the movement – that’ll really mess with public perception
* find an insider spokesperson from within the financial sector
* draft a mission statement with clear political or legislative outcomes
* marshal prominent leftist banners away from the front of rallies (ie. Che banners which do immeasurable harm to your cause)
* once you have worked out the goals of the movement present these to politicians
* collect 10,000 signatures and have these goals debated in NSW parliament
Bam, before you know it you have a movement that presents well (and like it or not this IS important), hasn’t marginalised the entire working population, and has a dialogue and leverage with our political representatives. You’re not going to remove greed from our DNA. You’re not going to smash the system. So why not aim for concrete, tangible change? Because if it’s utopia you’re chasing, there are plenty of communes across the state still accepting new arrivals.
I am not denying you free speach in any way shape or form. Nor have I said your voice was not legitimate but I asked why you seemed threatened by the tone and content of your posts, when you say things like “i wonder how many of these protesters have done tangible community work” and “sitting down and whinging about it’ – this implies certain things, like we don’t do community work (most of us do), and that we are ‘whingers’ (I am not sure what that even means…. is this your own ‘delegitimising’ argument – i.e. you don’t like what we are saying so we are whingers and our voices lack legitimacy?). I asked why you were threatened because you are immediately asking us to defend ourselves, and also name-calling.
You also claim we ‘assault police’ as if this is a blanket statement. I don’t know what your first hand knowledge of that happened on sat night? I, and I would say the vast majority of ppl there did not break ANY law. We were eventually asked to ‘move on’ – and we did so – though many lawyers have asserted the ‘move on’ directive is invalid in its mis-use against genuine protest and we have power to take this to the high court.
Maybe you should have been there when I and a few others went to Penrith, Parramatta, Lakemba etc and talked to people there, or when we did creative flash mobs, or when we shared food with people living homeless or when we all listen when a usually marginalised person gets up to speak – and their opinion and experiences are respected. I blog a lot about my experience at occupy and I am happy to share the link if you are interested?
Also my name is Marlaina, or Marla – not Maria – a mistake certain people tend to make.
My apologies Marlaina, I called you Maria in my earlier post. I’d correct it if I could but no disrespect was intended
Marla, I doubt people are deliberately misspelling your name. On my computer (possibly the same on other peoples) your name is displayed in red size 9 or 10 font. For those of us whose 20/20 eyesight went south years ago the “l’ looks like an “i”.
It is not down to “certain people”.
that action wasn’t a decision made by the General Assembly. There was no consensus. Each individual is allowed to do whatever they like and suffer the consequences as a result.
My only comment is that the police are currently hiding behind a council by-law which is normally enforced by a ranger issueing an infringement notice. Australians are legally allowed to protest. this is fact. there is no written limit in the law that says protest needs to be in business hours or daylight hours only. A right is a right and Occupy has a right to protest 24/7, otherwise it is not a right.
The fact that these individuals took a building is indicitive of the fact that we are being denied our legal right to protest.
Simply consider what would happen in a year or so if something happened in your community that outraged you and you decided you needed to protest, and police started saying you’re not allowed due to some rarely used council by-law. Homeless people sleep in these parks every night. If they are allowed, and we are being moved on then it is not a policing decision, it is a political decision.
Last time i checked the police were not meant to enforce any particular political agenda.
If the police decided to recognise the fact that we have a right to protest in australia and there is no legal time limit on this, we wouldn’t have members of our group wasting police time and taxpayer money with last nights shenanigans.
Make no mistake, the police want the media projecting an image that says ‘if you come down to occupy it isn’t safe’.
This is not democracy if the police are using intimidation to prevent a legitimate protest movement from growing. That’s not a policing decision, that’s a political decision.
So if it wasn’t a decision made by the GA OS didn’t support the action? They seemed to be from OS they had the tshirts and the banners and were identifying themselves as from OS.
I like the way you people run things even less than the current government
The police spoke very well in this mornings’ news.
They said clearly that they recognise the right to protest but not break the law which was done in this case.
All the OS ‘spokesperson’ could do was look like a rabbit in the headlights and talk about the pushing and shoving and the pushing and shoving.
Once again well done.
The right to protest is one thing, Jono, permanently occupying a public space is another. In effect you are asserting your right to privatise or monopolise a public space that should be shared by all, in so doing you are denying your fellow citizens the right to use that space as they would wish. Presumably you consider that this is okay because your cause is so important that everyone else should be inconvenienced by it. It is this kind of hubris on behalf of a fringe group that I suspect many find off putting, I know I find it so.
I don’t know how the OS is structured but respectfully, if the decision to occupy private property wasn’t made by the General Assembly why has the movement endorsed it? Surely someone realised this was always going to be a PR disaster! Was there anyone at the action trying to talk the individuals behind the trespassing out of their actions? Were there attempts to comply with all police commands?
The police stormed the building and removed people with no warning – and at that stage people left or were removed with force. The 10 people (and only 10) in the building were ppl living homeless and made a decision to perform an action of civil disobedience to highlight the housing crisis in our city.
We endorsed a ‘statement of support’ because we respect the individuals who have taken this action – it’s not an endorsement of the action itself, but support of those people. Do you come to the meetings? You miss a lot of discussion and frank critical analysis of events. A summation on a website isn’t fully reflective, as you probably understand
I saw your suggestions above and many i agree with, some not so much. The mainstream media have their own agenda regarding the kind of coverage they give the movement. Being around at the times if many scuffles, I can say i was bullied, intimidated and goaded by the police. A few people maybe be more willing to enter into an agitated state with police but this is certainly NOT the majority of people. I must stress a lot of things you speak of are known to people involved and things we are working on already. we’re not stupid people.
We understand the imperfections in the movement. It is growing and getting better each day. So thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate that you seem to have concern about the movement getting more organised. I think though that we need more understanding regarding how HARD it is to unify MANY people and work to a unified and organised position. its disheartening when you get criticism when you’re still trying to build up. Thanks for engaging tho.
p.s. i was part of the ‘funeral’, it was amazing, conceived by a Latina feminist group who have some amazing insights into the democratic practice in AU, and it actually engaged a lot of people with its creativity.
So now that you have moved from occupying public space to private property how long until you occupy someone else’s abode?
Just head to the surburbs, break in, push granny and grandpa aside and start writing crap on their walls?
But’s that’s OK because they own more than you do.
Haha. Yeah okay…. now you have gone into the realm of illogical irrational argument.
Some here would argue this all became illogical and irrational when people started squatting in a park…
I can understand that you disagree with the action of occupation. But thats the spirit of occupy all over the world and comes with a long and strong history of sit-ins and occupations in activism, protest and civil disobedience for many causes in many countries.
It’s not ‘irrational’ or ‘illogical’ to occupy – as I can speak clearly and logically about why I think its important. Some people may say it’s ‘not needed’ or ‘ineffective’ – and thats a different argument/assertion.
Bizarre absolutes/strange hypotheticals are irrational because they do not follow sensible or logical progression – but rather are based on assuption and x=y when in fact x does not in any way = y.
That’s the point.
You can’t speak clearly and logically; even your fellow members agree with this in posts contained here.
It is irrational and illogical if the outcome you are destined to achieve is to anger the real 99% and turn them against your ’cause’.
This is the only thing as a group you are doing very well.
Why am I angering you? I believe it is unfair that you are saying I am irrational and illogical based on future outcomes yet to happen, and which are based on your definitions of my possible future actions.
What fellow members are telling me I cannot speak clearly and logically? Speaking online really riles people up. I think better conversations can be had in person, human to human. I feel you’re not offering any solutions or suggestions, only thinly veiled insults disguised as ‘criticism’. I am unsure what following this line of discussion will achieve.
[Why am I angering you?]
You’re not angering me, but from what I have seen much of the 99%. I feel more humour, surprise and at times pity.
[I am unsure what following this line of discussion will achieve.]
Insight.
read my blog. Thanks.
Watch the live video of the eviction here:
http://t.co/pTWX1ZLr
People if you cant see that there is a problem with the so called Democracy we live in you are blind or ignorant, If you cant see that our Government is basicaly Fascist. I think you should read and research History a bit more before criticising others for standing up for your Democratic Rights. They are trying to let you people know to just look arouind and see that the system is corrupt and need to be overhauled. Read and research even statements made by US presidents about the current situation ring true. Read about Jefferson and Jackson. Read about Germany..Why did those people all do what their Government said. Time to have a good look arouind and Educate Yourself before JUDGING others. The evidence and clues are evrywhere just because othersd can see it does not make them stupid.
People if you cant see that there is a problem with the so called Democracy we live in you are blind or ignorant, If you cant see that our Government is basicaly Fascist.
So, hala, if people disagree with you they are blind or ignorant and haven’t thought things through. You, on the other hand, have and can guide those of us in darkness into the light at which point we’ll all rush to the Sydney CBD to protest. I do not like the government and the ever interfering state, but it is most definitely not fascist. I’m also under no illusions about the nature of the current crop of professional politicans and certainly would like to see some changes to the democratic system such as genuine proportional representation. However, these things are not greatly impacting on my life and I do not need others to presume to stand up for what they interpret to be my democratic rights and certainly do not support them breaking the law, these people represent themselves and nobody else.
Isn’t our current PM a former secretary of the ‘socialist forum’ and led the Australian Union of Students?
Put your hand up here if you voted for her to be PM?
How did she get in again?
Perhaps a socialist conspiracy
Last election I felt no-one represented me, so I did not vote.
I think what the 10 people did last night was very brave. In our society marginalised people’s voices are hardly ever heard. You hear tales of poverty and statistics from NGOs and Politicians, but through their voices is the implicit silencing of the voices of those very people they ‘represent’. Its as though everything done for marginalised people must be done for them, in a way palatable to the public, so we can all pat ourselves on the back for ‘helping’ when really its just platitudes and lip service.
Charities take your money, but as even the Daily Telegraph showed, in some instances 60% is used on marketing and admin. In 2000 years or more of charitable giving and organisations that help – why haven’t they eradicated poverty? Why isn’t it working? As someone above said – real direct action is much more powerful.
This city has thousands of unoccupied buildings and houses, yet homeless people, women and men at risk of violence, people in extreme poverty, people with mental health issues struggle to find a safe place to sleep at night, where they cannot be harassed, where it is warm, and dry. Things so basic it makes me cry thinking people have to struggle for it and defend themselves from hateful people.
When 10 people decided to occupy this building, empty for three years, they did so in a respectful manner. Yes they ‘broke in’ but I feel sometimes certain laws can be broken to make a point and draw attention to a vast inequality. No-one had to be hurt, nothing was damaged – except by the police who both damaged the building and severely hurt one occupant. The waste of money of taxpayers on the complete and utter over-reaction from the police is most galling. What is the threat of 10 homeless people? Must we bully, marginalise and put them down even more.
When some Occupy Sydney participants went to support the people in the building – what they were doing was showing support for the voiceless, extending that voice, making what is largely a forgotten issue loud and public. I am fully supportive of the action.
I have no leftist agenda, and I am tired of the same ‘unwashed, lazy, don’t know what you’re doing, you broke the law you deserve violence’ rhetoric. This is a tired way of thinking. Its lazy, and its cruel. It helps nothing.
You are trying to turn a criminal act into one of goodwill.
A clever but failed attempt at manipulation.
So OS wants to start running homeless shelters now? The problem of homelessness is a lot more complicated than simply finding a place to sleep.
How can a group who doesn’t even have common goals and outcomes from GA’s expect to look after such a complex issue?
There are many other programs that highlight this problem in a much better light (and cause less damage) such as the CEO sleepout.
A lot of what you call ‘rhetoric’ is simply the truth or counter-argument to the groups’ leftist agenda.
Maybe some of you should try each listing 10 good things about a capitalist society – one in which you have all benefitted from; to provide some balance.
You talk of influence of ‘the capitalists’ on government/policy decision but many of you choose not to see the influnce of your affiliated groups in the political process.
Until then saying counter-argument helps nothing is simply gross hypocrisy.
A group that does not want to listen to these things is extremely closed minded.
I have never asserted I am against capitalism, in fact – on my own blog I even talk about benefitting from it, so I am way ahead of *your* assertions of what I *should* be doing
LOL CEO sleep out – I remember having to deal with a group of them going to the event – they even tried to scam free transport tickets to get to the event from my work!!! The gall of trying to get free transport when you earn so much, to go to an event when you ‘experience’ homelessness (In luna park!!) when many homeless ppl can’t even get $$ for a bus ticket was so flabbergasting to me.
I’d rather listen to the people living homeless who I have met during Occupy, which are a very important voice, more important than any CEO sleep out.
Anyway, I think this is the last time I am going to engage with you online. See you at a meeting, or outreach event, or volunteer event and we can talk real solutions!
I wouldn’t laugh as the CEO sleepout gets much much better publicity for the homeless cause than the ‘break and enter’.
Isn’t that the idea? To raise awareness?
Unfortunately as I don’t live in Sydney on-line is the only engaging I can do and if you choose not to do this any more then not a problem and thanks for your thoughts.
I agree raising awareness is great – but i think we can agree that awareness is raised by many people in many ways – and I guess i feel uncomfortable that the ‘awareness’ raising of people living homeless seemed to be derided while ‘awareness’ raising by CEOs is deemed doing it better – I don’t know… it’s funny because some people living homeless sleep out every night… and no-one seems to think they are big heros for it.
So what is left to do? Try and talk to people on the street who look down on you and sneer at you, talk through an NGO or gov agency and get wrapped up in red-tape, or take a huge brave risk and go inside an empty building to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?
I have a blog – i think I have posted you the link in other threads. i’d rather learn by reading people’s stuff without this kind of engagement which I am sure you can agree gets confrontational and not very helpful.
You may well state that charity is mearly “just platitudes and lip service”. But actions like you are undertaking are seen by many as just militant antagonism. Goading the Police into a response so as to have whatever the “cause of the week” is splashed all over the news.
Yes, the homeless situation is a dire shame. But it will not be solved by simply breaking into other peoples property. You want to make a statement that will be applauded? Open your own home to those 10 people and show that you care. Bring in the camera and show how that even one person can make a differance. Or is that not as easy as poking sticks at the police, having a 30 minute screaming match for the cameras crying brutality, only to go back home to your comfy bed when it’s all over.
I am not sure you even know who you are referring to when you say “you”? I wasn’t even there
The 10 people who were in the building are people who are homeless but also part of occupy sydney. They acted however, as individuals. There were about 40 occupy sydney participants who went to support them, but did not enter the building.
I respectfully agree to disagree with you. Ahhh democracy!
The police sent a VERY large response team inc bomb squad, riot squad and dogs. They had chainsaws!! They gave no warning they were going in, and one person was badly injured by police while they were arrested.
The live stream showed people singing John Farnham
It may not be ‘solved’ but it certainly got ALOT of media attention regarding discussion on homelessness in many of the blogs, newspapers and face to face discussions I have had.
Anyway, you have given great suggestions – let me know how it goes after you house some people living homeless in your home? Maybe you and the homeless you housed can come and speak to others about what you learned from that experience.
Anyway – this is the end of my participation on this thread. I think I have been pretty genial in the face of general criticism and hostility
on November 11th, 2011 at 2:24 pm #
[...] frustrated because I really want it to succeed, and yet locally at least it seems to be doing everything it can to alienate itself from the general public. I’m also frustrated because having read up a [...]
on November 11th, 2011 at 5:07 pm #
[...] from my local Occupy. Still, I think there are some serious points of divergence between the squatting action from earlier in the week (and other strong statements about homelessness in this city) and, say, [...]