• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
1
 26-10-2011 Page
1 Re:
FREEDOM OF SPEECH – Occupy Melbourne- etc
 
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
®
Our name is our motto!
 
PLEASE OTE
: Until our websiteHttp://www.office-of-the-guardian.comhas been set up to operate the websiteHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comwill be the alternative website for contact details.help@office-of-the-guardian.com  Free download of documents fromhttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
Ken Lay
Acting Chief Commissioner  26-10-2011
 
C/oheidelberg.uni@police.vic.gov.au Victoria Police Centre, G.P.O Box 913, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA
 
5
.
Cc:M
r Robert Clark 
MP Attorney-Generalrobert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au 
10
Ted Baillieu
Premier of Victoriated.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au 
Peter Ryan
 
, Police Minister 
 peter.ryan@parliament.vic.gov.au 15
Robert Doyle
Mayor of the City of Melbourne
lordmayor@melbourne.vic.gov.au 
AD TO WHOM IT MAY COCER
 
Re:
FREEDOM OF SPEECH – occupy Melbourne – etc
20Sir,
.
as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I take the matter of FREEDOM OF SPEECH very serious as itis embedded in the constitution and therefore write to you about recent matters..I understand from various media reports that for some time protestors (demonstrators) were25exercising their right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH by having set up a camp area of numeroustents and sleeping in these tents as a exercise of their right to protest in the what I understand wascalled OCCUPY MELBOURNE against the 1% of people having most of the assets, etc.
.
As I view it the exercise of FREEDOM OF SPEECH must be deemed sacred in a30DEMOCRATIC society and should never be denied. Having stated this those who exercise their FREEDOM OF SPEECH can obviously only do so if they themselves also observe the rights of others.
.
 
In my view the following matter is very much to be considered. Matter of 
99 F.Supp.2d 438
35
(2000)
 METROPOLITA COUCIL, IC., Plaintiff, v. Howard SAFIR, Commissioner of 
 
the ew York City Police Department; Henry Stern, Commissioner of the ew York City
 
 Parks Department; and the City of ew York, Defendants
.
 
 
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=99+F.Supp.2d+438&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33&case=1072
 
4177128590739675&scilh=0 40
.
It is clear from this judgment that the sleeping in tents as a protest regarding the homeless was inthis case permitted. It is also clear that the sleeping in tents for other purposes clearly cannot betolerated contrary to the provisions of the city.
.
45As I understand it the protest was not one relating to the plight of homeless people and as suchthe sleeping in tents was in my view not part of the protest itself. As such I view the sleeping inthe tents was an abuse of FREEDOM OF SPEECH in that regard.
 
 
2
 26-10-2011 Page
2 Re:
FREEDOM OF SPEECH – Occupy Melbourne- etc
 
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
®
Our name is our motto!
 
PLEASE OTE
: Until our websiteHttp://www.office-of-the-guardian.comhas been set up to operate the websiteHttp://www.schorel-hlavka.comwill be the alternative website for contact details.help@office-of-the-guardian.com  Free download of documents fromhttp://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati 
.From media reports I understood that a protestor was indicating that the protest could lastforever. In my view this kind of comment indicated that it was not a protest that reasonably could be deemed to be an expression of FREEDOM OF SPEECH concerning the overallcircumstances, including the reported difficulties local shop keepers were experiencing due to the5 prevention of proper access to their businesses.
.
I became also aware of some of the comments made by Mr Robert Doyle Mayor of Melbourne,that he did give advance warning to the protestors that they would have to clear the area.Considering that the City of Melbourne had allowed the protest to last about 6 days or so I view10that a reasonable minded person has to accept that the right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH was wellcatered for and the conduct of the City of Melbourne to require the area to be cleared wasappropriate in the circumstances.I do not know if a permit was issued for this particular protest for tents to be set up and people tosleep in but assuming it no such permit had been issued then I can only compliment the City of 15Melbourne for it’s patience to have tolerated for such number of days the protest.It is part of life that we all at times are inconvenient because someone decides to protest and thismay then eventuate that it may block the streets for some time. This is part of DEMOCRACY.Having stated this I view that a protest that last into another day may have to be considered verycarefully if this is still and expression of FREEDOM OF SPEECH as then the inconvenience to20the general public may outweigh the right of protesting into another day.The City of Melbourne has its duties and obligations towards its ratepayers and those seeking toexpress their right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and so FREEDOM OF PROTEST must alsoobserve the rights of others in doing so. In my view the protestors could have set up their tentselsewhere without causing a loss of business revenue to small shopkeepers who after all were not25the target of the protest as their issue was so to say the mega rich. Actually their conductappeared to me to injure the very people they claimed to protest for.In my view the protestors failed to take proper consideration of the rights of others and by thisunduly injured others in the process and to me this is not an expression of FREEDOM OFSPEECH and so also FREEDOM OF PROTESTING but rather was to manipulate their rights30without appropriate consideration to those they protractedly injured.In my view the protestors should have transferred their tents to an area where it did not causeinjury to the shop keepers and so the expression remained then to be an exercise of FREEDOMOF SPEECH and FREEDOM TO PROTEST.For the above I view that the city of Melbourne was well; entitled to take all appropriate action it35deemed required in the circumstances and indeed a failure to do so would have been a seriouserror on its part as it must consider the interest of its ratepayers also, who are also the local shop[keepers that were now adverse affected for a number of days.
.
 Now something that happened to me more then 50 years ago as to give an example:
40
When I was about 13 years old (About 1 metre 82 tall) my eldest brother invited me to go along to the cinema andfor this we had to walk through the Maas tunnel. When we walked into the tunnel having just left the elevators I washit over the head by a police officer on horseback with a baton. Ok forget about going to a cinema with a headache.It just happened that the police were breaking up a protest in the tunnel and as my brother and I happen to walk intothe tunnel, so to say at the wrong moment, the police not knowing we were so to say innocent passer-by’s and
45
considering my hight simply assumed that we were part of the protest. To me the incident was being at the wrongtime at the wrong place and I never held it against the police officer who hit me with the baton because I understoodhe was simply trying to do his job and perhaps had I not been so tall then he might never even have hit me, realisingI was a child.
.
50Having watched some media reports about the conduct of the police to remove protestors itappears to me that to what I could see the police used reasonable force. In my view this was notthe breaking up of a lawful protest but the removal of protestors who abused the rights of 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...