<< WOMAN 'STABILIZED' ~ MAIN ~ DO NOT OFFEND OUR FUTURE RULERS >>
FREEDOM STOMPED
Peter FitzSimons will be upset. His artistic friends have lost their legal appeals:
Two peace activists who painted an anti-war slogan on the Sydney Opera House will be spending their weekends in prison after they lost appeals on both their convictions and sentences.
David Burgess, 34, and Will Saunders, 34, were sentenced to nine months periodic detention for malicious damage after they painted “No War” on the tallest sail of the Opera House on March 18, 2003, as Australia prepared to send troops to Iraq.
Burgess and Saunders appealed on the ground of self defence, claiming they were defending the lives of those who would die in Iraq.
Just think how many more people would have died had they not painted their little sign.
Aah, the selective morality of the Left.
How many were painting slogans onto major public buildings when Saddam was killing people?
And in the great “anti-war” rallies, among the thousands of “Bush=Hitler” signs and images of Howard kissing Bush’s bum, how many carried signs denouncing Saddam’s cruelty?
No prizes for guessing there were none.
Posted by The Mongrel on 2005 02 24 at 07:40 PM • permalinkPerhaps we could send them to the Sunni Triangle to negotiate a peace settlement with Zarqawi, or at least an agreement not to harm Australian troops. Or maybe Pakistan, so they can find OBL.
I may be sticking my neck out here…
...but if those two put their heads together perhaps they could cut to the root causes of our disagreements with our Muslim friends. At the very least, secure a lasting hudna. What a capital idea!“self defence…of those who would die in Iraq”
My brain hurts.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 02 24 at 08:28 PM • permalinkYou know, the Queensland Criminal Code allows two defences for common assault and OBH:
1/ Attempting to prevent a repetition of a criminal offence
2/ Attempting to prevent a breach of the peace
Both of which, incidently, I successfully used when I was found not guilty for clobbering a Kiwi kunt who attempted to drive my sister off the road during a road rage incident where I was the passenger.
Anyways, I’m just hoping that the next cunning stunt is held in Queensland, at a place and time that I am also present.
While we’re at it (in angry mode), the only Frenchman that I ever admired was Philippe Sella, whose king hit on Peter FitzSimons in 1990 I will forever treasure.
I hear what you say but as a baby boomer I still am a little sad that we are jailing people for a sign. I know all the arguments for the punishment and even intellectually agree with them but just…we seem to have grown up a little too far. (Please don’t identify me in any with the views of FitzSimons)
Allan…. he was English…. you idiot. Deport the leftist bastard for the term of his natural life and give him Margo as a going away present… and Marilyn Shepherd… and Craid Rowley… and Bill Avent and all the other Margo clowns. Bring on Albrectson to deal with these fuckers.
Posted by Karl Fidel Adams-Kingston on 2005 02 24 at 10:42 PM • permalinkAllan: you seem to be under the misapprehension that these two tools are being imprisoned for writing anti-war slogans. No, they are being imprisoned (weekend detention - what a joke) for criminal damage to public property. Are you seriously saying this particular crime should carry no penalty whatever? Would you be feeling so forgiving if they were a couple of skinheads writing white power slogans? If it’s any consolation, neither of these wankers will probably serve out even these token terms, before developing ‘depression’ or some such.
The relevant law on self-defence in NSW is contained in section 418 of the NSW Crimes Act 1900.
418 Self-defence—when available
(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or
(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,
and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.
This involves a two-part test1.subjective test – actual belief
2.objective test – that the conduct is a reasonable response to that belief.The Court of Criminal Appeal essentially stated that they could satisfy 1. but not 2. and it was right for the trial judge to withdraw the defence from the jury: R v BURGESS; R v SAUNDERS [2005] NSWCCA 52
One of them was quoted on JJJ a few days ago:
“the Americans are over there stealing Iraq’s oil”
Need I say more?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 02 24 at 11:09 PM • permalinkKarl: You seem to have lots of unresolved issues.
Cuckoo: “Are you seriously saying this particular crime should carry no penalty whatever? Would you be feeling so forgiving if they were a couple of skinheads writing white power slogans?” No and Yes. In my old neighbouhood the local police Sergeant would smack us in the ear and make us clean it up and then attend our sister’s wedding. The punishment should fit the crime. What is involved here is property damage not personal violence.
Whatever you feel about the message, and you obviously feel very strongly against it, restitution is the first remedy. In this case they can either clean it up or pay for cleaning but cleaning it personally would be the better solution. If neither can be made practicable then attachment of assets, earnings etc would be appropriate.
I sincerely disagree with their message and their means but still think this punishment lacks vision and appropriateness.
How is defacing the Opera House, by painting NO WAR on the tallest sail, defending anyone’s life?
Posted by CJosephson on 2005 02 24 at 11:20 PM • permalinkI agree that there should be a huge division between violent crime and other crime including property (unfortunately there usually isn’t; a certain threshold of money starts to exceed rape in severity it seems).
I suppose in this case these smug bastards still think they’re in the right. The fine didn’t teach them a thing as their idiotic supporters ponied up the money. I’d be more interested in getting those with unpaid parking fines out of jail.
Allan: Mayberry was a long time ago, and Sheriff Andy Griffith is no longer around to dispense humane small-town kerbside justice (followed up by a heapin’ helping of Aunt Bea’s apple pie). We’re not talking about a couple of misunderstood teens tagging a railway overpass. I’m rocking with mirth at the thought - in this litigious, occ-health and safety-mad age - of forcing these two clowns back up onto the Opera House, with a few bottles of turps and some old t-shirts, while your old Sergeant stands over them. “Now boys, I want to see those ceramic tiles spotless, then we’ll be down to the youth club for lamingtons and lemonade”.
Cuckoo: A thoughtful response although Bankstown in the 60’s was hardly Mayberry! I am not the court and no doubt you are correct about the times and the means.
It is true I am a victim of nostalgia. The fact that these perpretrators go to jail may give them martyr status and then we would not only have to put up with Bob Brown being interviewed about everything but them as well. Not a pretty outcome as they say in Docs.
These guys are guilty of extreme hubris in feeling that their grandstanding urge justified defacing public property of this sort and stature.
It would be totally justified if they personally had been made to risk their lives or at least safety to clean it all off AND pay a large fine out of their own funds.
Their stated reason for acting was patently false and additional punitive fines should be levied for attempting to mislead the court in addition to causing the process to take place.
..I still am a little sad that we are jailing people for a sign ..
Allan, please save your sympathy for those who actually deserve it.I think we are jailing people for vandalising a national treasure.
There were plenty of other people opposed to the war, who managed to get their message across without using such despicable means.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 02 25 at 08:48 AM • permalinkIf these people were honorable and honest, they’d have gladly accepted the consequences of breaking the law, perhaps by pleading guilty and sparing the state the cost of a trial. That’s the whole point of civil disobedience (as composed to anarchy or revolt) - one’s protest stops at the particular law or action, but otherwise one accepts the claims of law and legitimate authority.
But Nic is in the gold. Don’t these guys own anything of their own to wreck?
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Presumably the moonbats stood up in court and recited John Donne, to argue that defending someone else - by painting a frickin’ sign - is self-defense. Good thing Pat O’Shane wasn’t sitting on this one. (And Andrea - run to the rooftop and flash the Tim-signal: RWDBs are rioting in the streets for joy, and handing out sweets to passersby over the appointment of Janet Albrechtsen to the board of the ABC).