<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00"> Ah! This is what I was looking for. I saw on TV today, an Australian MP, was heckling Bush but couldn't make out if it was something in Bush's speech or something else. This article does not give any more details either but I take it they were upset how the US as handled some of their citizens by not handing them over to Australia. </font>
---------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia...3oct2003-9.htm

Two Greens Senators have been banned from Parliament for 24 hours after yelling out in protest during US President George W Bush's speech.

Mr Bush appeared unfazed after Senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle were ordered to leave today's joint sitting of Parliament.

"Sergeant will remove Senator Nettle," Speaker of the House Neil Andrew said.

"I love free speech," Mr Bush said.

But the Senators, wearing photographs of the two Australians detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, defied the Speaker's orders and remained in the chamber.

Their attempts to present a letter and photograph to Mr Bush were stymied by Government MPs who stood between the senators and the President.

Senator Nettle says she was shocked and disturbed by their conduct and comments allegedly made by Senator Ross Lightfoot.

"To the effect of 'you should go off and die'," she said.

Senator Lightfoot's office says he merely told Senator Nettle to go away.

The disciplinary motion passed against the Greens senators means they will not be permitted to attend a Parliamentary address by China's President tomorrow.

[ 10-23-2003, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

What get's me every time is that Bob BROWN is leader of The GREENS.

Really he should have shut up. I voted Green when in Australia, and hardly admire George "the American way of life is not negotiable" Bush, but that's just stupidly rude behaviour to a guest only in town for 21 hours.

Here is something I can agree with you on fully Yorick. It doesn't matter who you are, when you go to another's "house" have some respect.

I also agree on the level of Bush admiration. Only a little longer hopefully till he is gone...

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00"> But Bush, was the guest.</font>

[ 10-23-2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

I should reword that. 8^P

A lot of people talking about respect - but respect is a two way process. The imprisonment without trial of two Austrailian citizens abrogates any respect that the country's parliamentary members owed to the visting politician.

The Austrailian parliament is, afterall, the symbol of that country's democracy and principles of freedom and equality under the law. I can not see why its members would feel duty bound to welcome someone into midst who has proven by his actions to have no respect for those principles (or indeed its citizens).

[ 10-23-2003, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

It doesnt matter if you dont agree with president Bush's actions or not, Brown should of respected the office and kept quite will he was speaking - it would have been the 'honourable' thing to do. Instead of playing politics - hes been crying all week over the fact that the public wasnt going to be allowed into parliament while Bush was there.

[ 10-23-2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: dragon_lord ]

Bush is coming to Britain on a State Visit next month. He is the first US President to do so since the Queen was crowned. It means he gets the full ceremonial reception.

He also gets this

"British Protesters Plan to Topple Bush Statue"

Posted by Jean Shaw
Saturday, October 18, 2003

British anti-war protesters must be bored, because they’re already working on creative ways to protest when President Bush visits England next month. And in typically juvenile fashion, they plan on toppling a mock statue of Bush, much the same way that Iraqis brought down the statue of Saddam in Baghdad.

Andrew Cawthorne, writing for Reuters, describes the mounting excitement of the British Bush-Bashers.

Anti-war protesters plan to topple and dance on a mock statue of President Bush in the center of London as part of demonstrations to ''blight'' his visit to Britain next month.

Their re-working in Trafalgar Square of the famous humiliation of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad six months' ago will be among running protests including marches and a mock trial of Bush planned around his November 19-21 state visit.

''People are excited about the prospect of opposing George Bush because they feel this visit adds insult to the injury already caused by the Iraq war,'' said Lindsey German, of Stop the War Coalition, one of various groups planning the events.

''Wherever he is, from the moment he arrives to the moment he goes, there will be protests of one sort or another,'' she added at a news conference on Thursday.

Bush is coming to Britain at the invitation of Queen Elizabeth and will spend time with his close ally Prime Minister Tony Blair reviewing the problems in postwar Iraq.

Both men have paid heavy political prices for going to war without a United Nations' mandate and then failing to find weapons of mass destruction. Their domestic popularity has fallen, relations with some international allies have cooled, and their names are reviled by anti-war protesters round the world.

The British groups, who brought a million protesters onto the streets of London before the war in February, said at Thursday's news conference they expected hundreds of thousands to participate in Bush protests around the nation.

Some demonstrators were planning to come from the United States and Europe, they added.

A petition has been launched to ask the British government to cancel his visit, and, assuming that will not be heeded, a mock state procession will be staged and a ''Goodbye George'' concert held the day he leaves.

''This will be a November to remember. I think it will be a bonfire of the vanities of Bush and Blair,'' said legislator George Galloway, whose radical anti-war rhetoric has seen him suspended from Blair's ruling Labour Party.

Galloway said he hoped images of protests in Britain would help turn the political tide against Bush in the run-up to the 2004 U.S. presidential election.

''Whilst we bear them (Americans) absolutely no ill will, indeed the opposite, we hate their president and think he is one of the world's most dangerous men,'' Galloway said. ''They should take the opportunity they have next November to do the world a favor, as well as themselves, and get rid of him.''

At their meeting to announce plans ''to blight the U.S. president's visit to Britain,'' the protest organizers mocked Blair's advisers, whom they said ''needed their heads looking at'' for accepting a Bush visit at such a politically delicate time for their boss.

''People can't believe the stupidity of inviting Bush to Britain,'' said Liz Hutchins, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Oh no! The lefties in the UK are going to protest Bush! Oh what will we ever do? Of course I myself would just ignore them. All they'll end up doing is whine, bitch, and moan. If these people ever got all the things they want it would spell the end of the UK. Just as they will destroy any other country that falls for their insanity.

But isn't he visiting the "Evil Lefties who want to destroy the world"? I thought Blair was left? [img]tongue.gif[/img] (though not as left as you could be ;) )

[ 10-24-2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

I was having a chuckle at Khazadman's response too - those evil Lefties huh :D . No one must have told him that those evil Lefties are the ones in power that are his allies :D , and the protest groups come from across the broad spectrum of politics and interest groups. I guess those facts Khazadman makes it harder to classify the protestors as the lunatic fringe?

In the Australian situation there is also a broad range to the protest, but our lunatic fringe is the loopy Senator Brown and his Greens. They are such a small and insignificant party that they resort to stunts like this one to get attention. The sad thing for the petulant Brownie is that the significant protest he wanted to make this week was not to the American leader but to the Chinese (over Tibet). He has had his most prized of plans reduced to tatters (ie been banned from the 2nd session) becuase he chose to act like a prize prat to GDubbya. Serves him right I reckon [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Come on now, the suspended Australian MPs in question should have had the dignity to hold their peace whilst another person was making a formal address, regardless of their opinions of that person. Opportunity to formally address and retort Bush's speech should have been given to Australian representatives though, at which time they could have brought up any issues they wished. But hollering and heckling like a drunken redneck whilst another formal representative is speaking in the parliamentary forum is just bad form, in my opinion at least (and that goes for all MPs, at any time). The problem seems to be with the minimal amount of voice that elected Australian representatives are given in this instance. Since they are not allowed to address Bush and the rest of the house formally, they are reduced to shouting out obscentities ('F**k off and die!' was it? Or 'something to that effect'?) during a formal address. Tsk tsk. [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

As for the statue-pulling British protestors, well, go on ahead. It seems a little bit juvenile, but who am I to criticise? I have no love for the Bush administration, but I think that opposition should be put foward in a slightly more dignified manner (maybe scheduling an open parliamentary debate between Bush/Blair and chosen opposition representatives would be more fitting). Although I have to admit, the protests sound like a hell of alot of fun, I just don't think they are going to get anything constructive done.

Hehe. I thought this topic was talking about Greenpeace.

It's about time President Bush got a dose of that concept he occasionally refers to, but is constantly shielded from: free speech.

[ 10-25-2003, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

I saw the broadcast of the speech (including the 'incident') and no-one shouted words to the effect of: "To the effect of 'you should go off and die'".

Furthermore:
"Brown even shook Bush's hand after the address that was capped by a standing ovation while Nettle tried to pass the U.S. president some papers, which Bush refused.

Brown -- an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq and a campaigner to have two Australian nationals held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay returned to Australia -- interrupted Bush as the president was talking about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

"I didn't shout anything, I spoke very loudly so that President Bush got the message about the two Australians who are illegally held at Guantanamo Bay after President Bush repatriated the four Americans from that hell hole," Brown told CNN.

"But I did say to President Bush, 'Respect Australia. Return the Australians to this nation for justice and if you respect the world's laws, the world will respect you.'"
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/as...kle/index.html

Skunk - you wouldn't hear those remarks in the footage - it was one of our "learned" protestors that accused a conservative MP who was phsically standing to obstruct her of the "go off and die" remarks. They were allegedly hissed to her as he stood in the way of their advance on the president.

There was a critical editorial in my local paper today of the Greens stunt, and I counted the letters to the editor as 15 against the grandstander and 2 in support.

Ahhhh. That puts it in a clearer light. The article makes it sound like the alleged remarks were directed at the President - which would be clearly unacceptable behaviour.
If Brown had made those remarks at Nettle, well it would not be abnormal behaviour in a legislature whose parliamentary decorum (as one observer mused) "bear a close resemblance to Australian football rules".

Should Brown have interrupted the President during his speech? No, not if there was an appointed time to publicy voice his opinion to the President in Parliament. If there was no appointed time - when else could he have addressed the President to voice his view?

[ 10-25-2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

It is interesting that a minority party member from the "unrepresentative swill" (description of the upper house in the immortal words of Prime minister Paul Keating), furthermore the unrepresentative swill from Tasmania, often the butt of "inbreeding jokes" ;) :D could have such a loud and disproportionate voice in this matter. Who is he representing again? Are the Australians in Guantanamo Bay Tasmanian by any chance? The Senate is the "House of the States".

Bear in mind, I voted Green and hated Paul Keating, but that's by the way.

Anyhow... it is not for him to accost Bush. It would be a decision the elected representatives of Australia need to make a democratic decision and request the return of those citizens. As an ally with an extradition treaty I am sure America would respect the right of Australia to TRY TRAITORS.

As it is Brown needs to limit his protestations to the Australian government. It would be pointless for him to scream at Bush, if Howard is telling Bush "don't worry mate... keep them in custody, keeps them off our hands... the bastards".

Who would Bush listen to? Unrepresentative swill from a minority party in Tasmania, or the Prime Minister of the Government?

Got to get your own house in order first.

[ 10-25-2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Good article Skunk.

The behaviour inside our Parliaments is a joke. Consider the sledging Australian Cricketers engage in and magnify it by a thousand. It's ridiculous.

Once again you show your ignorance of Britain and the British people.