Thread by @ellymelly

Get ready. Closing statements are due to start at 10:30 for the Cotterill v Romanes case.

Should political speech remain a protected right?

Find out, with @RebelNewsOnline
vimeo.com/event/1162227

What is it that makes the risk of protest MORE important than the risk of funerals, weddings, buying a coffee, etc.

So far expert evidence has failed to make a scientific argument for increased risk for political communication if carried out with health precautions.

"Unlike exercise, the freedom of political protest has protection under the constitution whereas exercise doesn't."

"But there might be good reason for the responsible officer to restrict protest and allow exercise..." Judge

(essentially)

"Why is engaging in political communication, which is protected in our constitution, not afforded the same preference as weddings and funerals in light of the evidence related to risk?"

"This is not an exercise in epidemiology." Judge

"Except that is the evidence put before the court. The way the [defendants] have crafted their response to our argument is based on [transmission] risk."

😕

The Judge referenced the Spanish Flu - interesting choice given that NONE of the restrictions on quarantine did anything to stop the Spanish Flu. It only delayed the course of the outbreak by a few months. It was a proof of failure related to government restriction.

"The Pub Test" is more sensible than the Supreme Court.🤷‍♀️ /just saying

If a 0.02% risk of death for most people is classified as 'reasonably necessary' to dissolve all of our human, civil and constitutional rights, then Australia has big problems.

There is no limit to how many 14 day 'state of emergencies' can be enacted.

Unlimited imprisonment.

Essentially the government's case boils down to:

"We can enact a state of emergency whenever we like based on our 'feelings' and then continue to impose that emergency indefinitely. During that 'emergency' we retain absolute power over every Australian citizen and their lives."

Side note: if we wrote our laws in plain English rather than ramblings of deliberate obscurity we'd all spend a lot less time trying to understand the meaning of each paragraph.🤦‍♀️

Question: If Australians are prohibited from going outside and engaging in their right to protest AND they are censored by the government in coalition with social media companies if they do so online, does that mean we have NO right to political communication?

"Overreach is not relevant to the suitability."

Most Australians would raise an eyebrow at that. Overreach is never irrelevant when it comes to the government.

We've reached the point where the government is arguing that you 'cannot leave home with dual purposes even if you adhere to health directives'.

In other words, you cannot protest while you exercise.

We're prohibiting multi-tasking.

With a straight face.

This all boils down to the government going out of their way to make sure that protesting against #lockdowns remains illegal. Something which goes against the spirit of protecting political communication.