Protestors gone too far!

[acropolite (Phil)]

If I was sprayed with pesticide I'd be looking for compensation for potential health consequences.

It happens regularly here in Tasmania, forestry is exempt from environmental law, nothing ever gets done, no-one charged.

[Louwai (Bryan)]

Then there's the "Professional Protesters" that travel the country putting in their 2cents worth.

A lot of the time it's these people who are responsible for the stupid & violent acts at protests.
All they are interested in is media coverage. How they get it is not an issue......

[casstony]

Originally Posted by acropolite

It happens regularly here in Tasmania, forestry is exempt from environmental law, nothing ever gets done, no-one charged.

Sounds like you need a bunch of feral protesters. While I generally support passive protest, being sprayed with pesticide is sufficient provocation to raise the level of protest to include property damage, in order to prevent the spraying.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by casstony

Sounds like you need a bunch of feral protesters. While I generally support passive protest, being sprayed with pesticide is sufficient provocation to raise the level of protest to include property damage, in order to prevent the spraying.

Sorry but vandalism isn't a good idea. The way I read the situation the loggers (or some part of them) may get away with criminal acts but the protesters won't. If they try something there will be cops, media and saturation vilification which will set back their cause.

Direct action always has to be subservient to the political (in the broad sense of the term) situation. In Australia at the moment violence will not succeed and you have great difficulty winning support for property damage. Non-violent protests may be acceptable, depending on the public perception of the particular issue. However lying in front of the 'dozers or stopping whaling operations is only a stop-gap measure. If the protesters don't change the legal/political situation they will eventually be beaten.

[casstony]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Sorry but vandalism isn't a good idea.

I'm sure you're right in terms of court proceedings but if I was being poisoned I'd find retaliatory vandalism entirely acceptable.

[wraithe]

If they where serious about stopping the spraying, they could use the environmental laws...
Spray drift would be a major issue and there really is nothing that aircraft drop that cant be done with machinery...Access to the trees at harvest would make it possibler for access from land based spray equipment...

I would be going the road of environmental vandalism because of spray drift...The state law does not over rule commonwealth law...

I think it goes like this "A Commonwealth act has precedence over a State act"

[Craig.a.c (Craig)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

In fact it is the indication of an attack that constituts an asault.. so a threatning gesture is all that is needed for an assault..battery is what most think of as an assault but it is as I have put it.


alex

If somebody yells at you it is a form of assualt. As Alex just said, assualt is not just use of force.

[CoombellKid]

Originally Posted by acropolite

Recently in Tasmania a group of redneck forest workers smashed up protestors cars with block busters in a violent and intimidating manner, government failed to condemn the actions saying they understood why the foresters acted in that manner and instead charging the protestors with trespass.

Having worked in the timber industry for a number of years. I can understand why some of these forestry workers react the way they do/did. And know what some of these feral greenies get up to too... the sabotageof machinery (designed to injure the operator) and the spiking of trees. While I dont agree with either sides violence, I certainly see why it happens. I think you would get pretty upset too if someone came in and made your workplace unsafe.

regards,CS

[andrewk_82 (Andrew)]

Just an update on my Brother's situation. The pilot has been given an official warning and has also spoken to and apologised to those that he sprayed.
By the way I did check and it was definately NOT just water that was sprayed on the drillers. The pilot got off pretty lightly as far as I'm concerned. I guess those affected figure its not worth the hassell of pursuing it any further.
I hope (probably in vain) that incidents like this do not occur in the future on either side (protestors to workers or worker to protestors) as it achieves little and effects those that are just doing their jobs.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by casstony

I'm sure you're right in terms of court proceedings but if I was being poisoned I'd find retaliatory vandalism entirely acceptable.

Not just court proceedings. I'm thinking in terms of winning the 'war', so actions have to be judged on how they affect that goal.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by andrewk_82

Just an update on my Brother's situation. The pilot has been given an official warning and has also spoken to and apologised to those that he sprayed.
By the way I did check and it was definately NOT just water that was sprayed on the drillers. The pilot got off pretty lightly as far as I'm concerned. I guess those affected figure its not worth the hassell of pursuing it any further.
I hope (probably in vain) that incidents like this do not occur in the future on either side (protestors to workers or worker to protestors) as it achieves little and effects those that are just doing their jobs.

If insecticide was dropped have all go to the doctor ..for the record... the fact the guy has owned up and no action has been taken by those who should does not prevent those attacked from taking a civil action..I am not suggesting they do however if you go to the doctor at least you will be well set up if the need to take action should arise sometime in the future..who knows what the future holds if it were insecticide...

alex

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by CoombellKid

Having worked in the timber industry for a number of years. I can understand why some of these forestry workers react the way they do/did. And know what some of these feral greenies get up to too... the sabotageof machinery (designed to injure the operator) and the spiking of trees. While I dont agree with either sides violence, I certainly see why it happens. I think you would get pretty upset too if someone came in and made your workplace unsafe.

regards,CS

Perhaps you can clarify something for me regarding the spiking of trees. Do the spikers announce what they have done and make it clear that milling these trees could be dangerous? If they do then serious questions have to be asked of logging management. Any employer who becomes aware of a danger to their employees and fails to act is legally and morally culpable. Obviously the outcome the greenies want is to stop logging but there are alternatives. It can't be that hard to detect whether there is a piece of metal in a tree, after all airports routinely detect metal on people.

[andrewk_82 (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Perhaps you can clarify something for me regarding the spiking of trees. Do the spikers announce what they have done and make it clear that milling these trees could be dangerous? If they do then serious questions have to be asked of logging management. Any employer who becomes aware of a danger to their employees and fails to act is legally and morally culpable. Obviously the outcome the greenies want is to stop logging but there are alternatives. It can't be that hard to detect whether there is a piece of metal in a tree, after all airports routinely detect metal on people.

It's a bit rich to be shifting the blame to logging management when logging management should not have to worry the trees being spiked. The protestors shouldn't be spiking the trees in the first place as the intent is to cause damage or injury.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by andrewk_82

It's a bit rich to be shifting the blame to logging management when logging management should not have to worry the trees being spiked. The protestors shouldn't be spiking the trees in the first place as the intent is to cause damage or injury.

Spiking should not occur. And the spikers are wrong however management has a duty of care that having been alerted to spiking they should not allow workers to be at risk... if they do they are probably as responsible for any injuy that may result to a worker... and that is fair as they are after all management and the buck stops there.

Most of these things cause irresponsible actions on many sides... these situations arise from emotive situations and folk dont think things thru... of course folk will justify their actions because they hate the other side and they are wrong... I dont know that we will ever see a world without conflict there are too many hot heads and although in the minority raise the level of hate in groups as a whole...hate does not work... but that is no reason to get rid of it according to humans.


alex

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by andrewk_82

It's a bit rich to be shifting the blame to logging management when logging management should not have to worry the trees being spiked. The protestors shouldn't be spiking the trees in the first place as the intent is to cause damage or injury.

Who's shifting blame? It is a simple fact that once management know there is a hazard they are obliged to act.

Following your logic when gangs of hooligans repeatedly attack bus drivers management should just send the buses out the same way because no one should attack a driver; airlines shouldn't screen passengers because no one should blow up a plane; my campus security should not provide escorts because women should be able to walk alone at night in safety; and shops shouldn't remove unsafe toys from their shelves because they shouldn't be dangerous in the first place.

To recognise a danger and take appropriate measures is not to condone the source of the danger. I think that is a pretty simple concept.

Just in case there is any misconceptions here, I am not anti-logging or anti-mining. I understand full well that we require these industries. I do however have issues at times with some of their practices.

[ving (David)]

thou doth protesteth too much!

[TrevorW]

Instead of attacking people who are only doing their jobs legitamately do something constructive not destructive.

Any action which needlessly causes harm or could kill someone who is going about there day to day business legally is nothing less than terrorism and terrorism as far as I'm concerned is often just reactions by minority groups who do not have the politcal power or support of the majority of the population to change the status quo.

Look what happened to whaling when there was no longer a viable market for the by products of whaling.

If logging becomes unprofitable or can be proven to cause more harm than good or alternatives are found it too will go the same way as the whaling industry.

Protestors should use their energy, voting and buying power to encourage changes in the general populace to stop the unnecessary destruction of old growth forrests before it is too late but not resort to needless acts of vandalism which does nothing for their cause.

[acropolite (Phil)]

Originally Posted by Trevor

If logging becomes unprofitable or can be proven to cause more harm than good or alternatives are found it too will go the same way as the whaling industry.

If you do some research you will find that forestry is already massively subsidised. Here's a starting point, read this article, if that doesn't convince you just google "Forestry subsidies in Tasmania".
At least in our state, the simple fact is that logging companies are destroying our native forests at an alarming rate, they are buying up valuable agricultural land using tax avoidance MIS schemes and putting farmers out of business.

To put it simply, we can't eat trees, and maybe if you have had to wait a lengthy time for hospital or health care (as we do in this state), or you have children in a school that is underfunded, you may like to ponder the fact that corporate welfare to the forestry sector is taking your taxpayer dollars that could have been otherwise spent on health or education.

[xelasnave]

Plantation forrests are a scam.
Up here the old farmers are selling prime land for useless trees...this land does not need irrigation for many crops and yet we have the water problem out West...so these companies dont include the real estae in the company assetts...that is the prize so uncle Freds Trust holds the real estate I guess. AND when the harvest is made do you really think there will be any cash for shareholders and creditors...no the market is down or something but irrespective of the excuse that will be the result.
However these enterprises spread some quick money around a community and folks keep quiet and dont say what I say...but everyone knows it is a short term effort that sees prime land disappear until the future... in the future when the trees are gone we will probably need the land for houses...but it is a shame that good food land goes wasted and out West rivers are stuffed for the want of sensible farming.

alex

[CoombellKid]

Fair enough.... but they're only planting on land that has been clear felled of native forests by the _farmer_. Funny how no protesters picket farmers who get permits to do so. The way I see it these plantation are duel purpose. Once the trees have established themselves the farmer re-introduce cattle into the plantations. Spraying is mostly done during thisestablishment time. It also better for the cattle to have shade insteadof clear pasture and no place to hide, especially when some breeds areprone to sunburn. Besides you can keep the plantation growing until youwant to harvast, your not set to a timetable.

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Plantation forrests are a scam.
Up here the old farmers are selling prime land for useless trees...this land does not need irrigation for many crops and yet we have the water problem out West...so these companies dont include the real estae in the company assetts...that is the prize so uncle Freds Trust holds the real estate I guess. AND when the harvest is made do you really think there will be any cash for shareholders and creditors...no the market is down or something but irrespective of the excuse that will be the result.
However these enterprises spread some quick money around a community and folks keep quiet and dont say what I say...but everyone knows it is a short term effort that sees prime land disappear until the future... in the future when the trees are gone we will probably need the land for houses...but it is a shame that good food land goes wasted and out West rivers are stuffed for the want of sensible farming.

alex