Oceania Greens Senators booted out of parliament during Bush speech

Everyone see this?

From News.com.au
Heckling senators booted out
By Paul Colgan, Natacha Butler and wires
October 23, 2003

US President George W. Bush's address to the Australian Parliament has been marred by rowdy heckling, with two anti-war politicians ejected from the chamber.

Greens senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle jeered Mr Bush, who was forced to stop his address.

"I love free speech," Mr Bush remarked as Ms Nettle was ejected from the chamber.

Mr Brown was ejected when he started groaning as Mr Bush told assembled politicians no one who cared about human rights in the Middle East could mourn the ousting of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

He was joined by a handful of other MPs and senators who interrupted the President's speech.

Neil Andrew, the Speaker of the House, immediately had the sergeant-at-arms remove Mr Brown.

Mr Bush was forced to stop his address and took a drink of water before proceeding.

After the address, Senator Brown re-entered the chamber and shook Mr Bush's hand while Senator Nettle attempted to give Mr Bush some papers, which he refused.


Leader of the House Tony Abbott moved for the Greens senators to be suspended.

Outside the Parliament, an anti-war demonstration turned ugly as protesters got into scuffles with police.

At least three people were arrested after protesters broke security netting near the US embassy, only to be forced back by a strong police presence with dogs.

Diggers praised

During his speech, Mr Bush paid tribute to Australians for their contribution to the war against terror, and to previous wars.

"Australians are fair-minded and tolerant and easy-going," he said.

"Yet in times of trouble and danger, Australians are the first to step forward, to accept hard duties and to fight bravely until the fighting is done.

"In a hundred years' experience, American soldiers have come to know the courage and good fellowship of the diggers at their side.

"We were together in the battle at Hamel, together in the Coral Sea, together in New Guinea, on the Korean Peninsula, in Vietnam.

"And in the war on terror, once again, we are at each other's side."

Mr Bush said Americans had seen first hand the work of terrorists in the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

Australians had seen the impact of terror in the Bali attack on October 12 last year.

Mr Bush said terrorists would not respond to negotiations.

"The nature of the terrorist threat defines the strategy we are using to fight it," he said.

"These committed killers will not be stopped by negotiations.

"They will not respond to reason. The terrorists cannot be appeased ? they must be found, they must be fought and they must be defeated."

Mr Bush said Australia, the US and other allies had driven terrorists from Afghanistan.

He said the war against Iraq was aimed at stopping weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists.

"So we are confronting outlaw regimes that aid terrorists, that pursue weapons of mass destruction, and defy the demands of the world," he said.

"America, Australia and other nations acted in Iraq to remove a grave and gathering danger, instead of wishing and waiting while tragedy drew closer."

'Beyond politics'

Opposition Leader Simon Crean said although Labor opposed the war, the bond between the two nations was strong.

In his welcoming address Mr Crean told the President the Australia-US partnership went beyond politics.

"Your presence here today reminds us that the partnership between our two great nations is broad - it's deep, it's many sided it's long-standing and, in it fundamentals, it is bipartisan," Mr Crean said.

"It is something beyond political parties and beyond administrations", he said.

Mr Crean said the differences between the two nations could "enrich rather than diminish" their relationship.

"The Australian perspective is bound to differ from time to time from the perspective of the United States and o

 

*paper aeroplanes and spitwads fly around the room*

*a loud gasp from little Johnny Howard standing guard at the door*

"The Headmaster's coming!!"

*there is a mad rush as all the kids run back to their seats. The door opens, Headmaster Bush enters and looks over the class smiling sweetly at him*

"Hello class"

"Hello Headmaster Bush"

*a paper ball flies through the air and hits Headmaster Bush square in the nose. All the class look to the back of the classroom at little Bobby Brown smirking and watch as he is sent out of the classroom and put on detention*

 

LMAO

Now THAT'S funny.

 

I just like the protester outside who had a sign "One village in texas missing an idiot"

 

I gotta admit - those latter two are funny.

 

Haven't been able to pay too much attention to all of this (not like I can ignore some of it with the jets overhead at times for the last day). Do though have the TV on in the background, and caught the "free speech" quip. Gotta say it was well delivered.

 

Hmmm, I haven't seen it being covered here in the States. Odd.

Maybe C-SPAN will have it, they often show the Brit Parliament, maybe they'll show the Aussie one as well.




Anata Baka?!

 

Well, JFT, the only images shown on Australian news came courtesy of US media - Aussie cmaeras were banned from the Gallery.

 

Okay, that's just odd.

I watch news all the time, and it's always on, even when I'm listening to music (muted and all), because I don't want to miss anything, and there's been nothing on it today.

Huh, this is wierd.

I'll have to check the last few minutes of the O'Reilly Factor to see if it's in his "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" dealy.




Anata Baka?!

 

JFT: It was on Hannity and Colmes on FoxNews as well as CNN. It was on their news reports all day as well.

 

Hannity & Colmes? No wonder I missed it.



Anata Baka?!

 

Well, you apparently missed most news bulletins as well

 

I was a bit embarassed by what these Greens did but, well, it's their right. They have a right to free speech, even if it probably wasn't the appropriate time or place to exercise it and were only doing it to score political points with their followers.

Although I'm not sure of your last point there, for once we seem to agree Stinky. I believe the Greens have a right under our Democratic system to voice their opinions and of course, those who they represent. Agree or disagree with them, they represent a percentage of our nation whose vote and value as citizens is the equal to that of any other citizen. This point is a key to Democracy, and why I was rather dismayed to hear they had been barred from attending President Hu's address today. (which I might add, was well done on his part.)

Just as with President Bush, their are issues at hand that concern President Hu that are disturbing and who many of our population feel need to be raised. Senator Brown represents this percentage and thus, should of had the right to raise them as is our democractic way.

It may not of been the best forum or time to of done this in, I'll readily admit that: but pragmatically, it is the only emphatic way for them TO of address the President and in as much, I'm fine with them doing so. It is not a point of embarassment: but a point of pride that our democracy is as unrestricted and free so as to enable them to make such a stand.

A stand that I believe was based on their conscience and the beliefs of their constituents: not some cheap political trick. We seemingly differ on something at least Stinky.

As for the other stuff: I thought Howard and Crean spoke well. Crean, IMO, really nailed it and managed to stay true to his previous stance while remaining courteous to Pres Bush. I was quite proud of both our leaders today (probably a first).

Again, we agree. I'm sure no one is surprised at how proud as punch I am of Simon's address to Bush; similarly how well he crafted his response to President Hu in today's session of Parliament.
Mr Howard also spoke well for his part. I may not agree with the content of what he said, but he didn't use the opportunity to grandstand or gloat, but rather, to emphasis the deep and long standing bond we share with America: an important point in light of the contentious past few months/years that have arisen during the Bush presidency.


The only point on which I deviate from our loveable orange Mod on Bush's speech, is his obviously unscripted (His spin doctors collectively cringing) "I love free speech" quip, which in my opinion seemed to undermine the Green's Senators opinion as unimportant or irrelevant, something that seems opposed to many of the basic democratic princibles we and purportedly the Americans, serve to uphold.

An interesting political week it has been, and promises to continue to be.

 

What a disgusting show of sycophancy from our country.
It really makes me sad to be an Australian knowing that:

a) Australian politicians were denied the right of parliamentary privelage (sp?)

b) Australian media was denied the right of freedom of press to cover our own house of parliament.

c) Australian citizens were denied the right to protest by being locked out of the public gallery.

Absolutley repugnant and a disturbing precedent IMO.

 

Whilst agree it is a bit of sobering precedent, some of it was really without much choice for this given instance.

a) Australian politicians were denied the right of parliamentary privelage (sp?)

As I've already said, I find this equally repugnant. The suggestions before the fact that we should in some way alter our long standing traditions to accomodate a foreign power were ludicrous, and for the most part not carried out on the day.

b) Australian media was denied the right of freedom of press to cover our own house of parliament.

Actually, my understanding is that the Media are unallowed to cover any outbursts or breachs of conduct: ie. Bob Brown's protest. Whilst probably archaic and unnecessary, it isn't anything new to our political system.


c) Australian citizens were denied the right to protest by being locked out of the public gallery.

I agree this is also worrying, but I suspect with the puffed up patriots walking around like androids as part of El Presidente Bush's quasi-phallic security force, our government didn't have a lot of say in the matter.

I mean, protesters are kinda like terrorists in way. They both disagree with the President, and thus constitute a clear and present danger to his safety. That sort of thing is enough to justify a breach of democratic rights and princibles.

Absolutley repugnant and a disturbing precedent IMO.

 

"Australian citizens were denied the right to protest by being locked out of the public gallery."

"I agree this is also worrying, but I suspect with the puffed up patriots walking around like androids as part of El Presidente Bush's quasi-phallic security force, our government didn't have a lot of say in the matter.

I mean, protesters are kinda like terrorists in way. They both disagree with the President, and thus constitute a clear and present danger to his safety. That sort of thing is enough to justify a breach of democratic rights and princibles."


Those protestors would have mobbed him to choking point if they could. Hippies these days are dangerous.

Anyone can disagree with the President, but if they go to extreme levels like those displayed outside Parliament House then they don't deserve to be anywhere near him. It was just plain and simple logic to keep the protestors out.

 

I agree to a certain extent to keep the protestors away. Whilst no one is taking away their right to free speech, President Bush is a very powerful man that now has alot more enemies that would love to assisinate him. I don't know if you've seen the footage of the Mexican President being shot in the head point blank by a protestor or not, but we don't need a dead American President on our hands.

Peaceful protests very rarely happen now days. Too many times do we see people getting violent. It's these people that are going to take away a persons right to protest.

 

"It's these people that are going to take away a persons right to protest. "

No, it's more like the Government that doens't want to be embarrassed on a global scale by 24hr news networks that take away a persons right to protest.

A public galllery isn't public if it hasn't got the public in it, dissenting attitudes or otherwise. No situation is ever "politically dangerous" enough to warrant the total exclusion of the voting public of an entire nation. We have a right to watch first hand the conduct of our elected representitves during sessions of parliament if we choose to, they don't have the right to exclude us when they see fit. Australia becomes more and more like America in relation to the free dissemination of information each day.

"..the Media are unallowed to cover any outbursts or breachs of conduct:"

That's interesting.
I wonder what the deal is if the ABC catches someone piping up during their daily Question Time broadcast? ?

"Hippies these days are dangerous. "

Is that an old sock you have there, Gath?

 

Those protestors would have mobbed him to choking point if they could. Hippies these days are dangerous.

Yes, next thing you know they'll be chanting about some new rubbish like "human rights" or "saving the environment" or some other novel way to stop us from making money.
Damn them.

Anyone can disagree with the President, but if they go to extreme levels like those displayed outside Parliament House then they don't deserve to be anywhere near him. It was just plain and simple logic to keep the protestors out.

I would hardly call a vocal protest extreme. Yes, a SMALL minority (probably no more then 20 people if history is any indication) from a rather extreme, quasi-militant group such as the Socialist Alliance, decided to cause some violence against the Police in a phallic display of unthinking angst.

They should by all rights, be locked up, much like that poor Young Liberal was when he staged his violent counter-protest at the NTEU march last week.

if they were locked up, we'd see a dramatic drop in violence in such protests, as the majority of those "hippies" wanted little more then to have a visible display of opposition to the President, nothing violent.

Of course, the Police will not press charges, and will usually let them out again, so they can cause more fuss for the camera's at the next protest, and give yet another excuse to break up a peaceful protest.

It's a good system, isn't it?

 

No, it's more like the Government that doens't want to be embarrassed on a global scale by 24hr news networks that take away a persons right to protest.

I don't think the Government would be embarrsed if a thousand people came down with signs saying "Go home Bush" and stood there peacefully. They would get embarrased when a thousand people start pushing, yelling, throwing stuff, fighting with police and turning the situation into a brawl. That's what the government would be embarrased about.

 

"I don't think the Government would be embarrsed if a thousand people came down with signs saying "Go home Bush" and stood there peacefully."

Because it wouldn't be reported overseas and therefore not damaging to our international credability as America's latest regional sheriff and defacto annexe?

If people act up in the public gallery (I'm only talking about inside the house, not outside) then remove them like they removed the elected representitives of Australian citizens who voiced objection to a visiting politician. Pre-emptively closing the public gallery to the public is like waging war on the asumption of illegal weaponary

 

remove them like they removed the elected representitives of Australian citizens who voiced objection to a visiting politician.

1. They are Senators; they only represent the very very small percentage of people who voted them in
2. They weren't removed during Bush's speech. They were told to, but they didn't, and ended up staying throughout the duration.

It would've been interesting to keep the Greens around for the Chinese President's speech, though. I wonder if they would stand up and protest against an actual dictator.

 

It's a good system, isn't it?



You don't like it, do something 'bout it.

Oh, and apparently, "Of all the people in the world who understand Texas, it's probably Australians." - Dubya.

E_S

 

".....they only represent the very very small percentage of people who voted them in"

Well that's a relief, the main thing is that they wern't speaking for alot of people isn't it?

 

they wern't speaking for alot of people

Say that to Bob Brown and he'll cry