• poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

    Kill something? That doesn’t even make sense unless talking about animals.

    It is not commonly accepted that property damage is violence. And in this case it wasn’t even property damage, but just a temporary disruption of the operation of the port.

    Edit: that Australian legal definition is so hilariously vague that is is clear that who ever wrote that was perfectly aware what they were doing and for what purpose.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      that Australian legal definition is so hilariously vague that is is clear that who ever wrote that was perfectly aware what they were doing and for what purpose.

      It’s like that for most nations. It effectively allows them to define any action against the status quo to be terrorism. The state is allowed to send the police (or other entities of violence) to attack dissidents, but you aren’t allowed to use any “violence” (aka disruption) to fight against them.

    • nef@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      According to the attorney-general’s department, these are the criteria.

      I don’t think this protest causes harm, serious damage, a public safety risk, or serious interference to critical infrastructure, so it’s not terrorism by Australian law.