The Constitutional Right to Communicate

occupy the worldI would like to support the Occupy movement. At present I see them as an eclectic bunch of people who have tied themselves together and at now trying to run in several different directions at once. They don’t really have an agenda or plan as yet, and when they do actually make a cohesive collective statement, I will decide whether or not I support that statement. There are a lot of things I think they should stand for, such as an opposition to using farmland and rainforest reserves as a place to test experimental mining techniques that could cause permanent contamination of the water supply; or fractional reserve banking; or demanding manditory triple bottom line reporting for all public companies wanting to trade on the Australian stock exchange, but it isn’t my place to tell them what they should stand for or how they should stand for it (unless I want to attend one of the general assemblies of course). They say that something is wrong with the way things are being run and I am inclined to agree. If they come to an agreement of what to do about it, I’ll decide then what I think.

However, I PASSIONATELY support their right to gather in peaceful assembly to communicate on political issues with each other and their elected representatives as granted by the Australian constitution. I vehemently oppose any action to break up these gatherings as a violation of the rights conferred upon them by the establishment of this nation.

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 thoughts on “The Constitutional Right to Communicate

  1. Are you looking at the original Wall Street (and other US counterparts) Occupys, or their Australian (and other foreign cousins)

    Cos I would put it to you that the US ones, at least, have a pretty basic direction. I’d sum it up in five words: “get money out of politics”

    The way that should be implemented is where there is much more division and confusion.
    (should political donations be public knowledge, but any amount still ok? should there be a limit? if so, is that limit different for individuals/companies? If there is a limit, should that limit be $0, or an actual tangible value?

    Various foreign (including Australian) movements tend to be less coherent, simply because that core tenet isn’t an issue here. Many of the surrounding issues are still issues though… but the fragmentation is greater here for that…


    1. You bring up a very important issue.

      In terms of Occupy Wall Street and the other US occupations, they do seem to have developed a coherent message and demand. My instinctive response is to allow sovereign democratic nations work out their own internal politics and how they want to shape their political processes. Any change in the system of governance is a decision which needs to be made by the people of that country. I may need to challenge that instinct though, because US domestic policy does affect every other country which relies on American economic stability which is threatened by the current system. I do believe that getting the money out of politics would be good for the general health of the USA as a nation.

      This post was mostly in regard to the Australian Occupy movement which I feel I have more ability to support or reject in a tangible way if and when they can make a decision about what they stand for.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s