On the evening of Tuesday, 12 September 2000, my daughter and several of her friends, along with hundreds of others, gathered outside Crown Casino in Melbourne to peacefully demonstrate against the World Economic Forum meeting. The atmosphere among protesters was positive and non-violent. Into this peaceful scene at around 8 p.m. came riot police, armed with extra-long batons and wearing helmets and visors. ... The riot police charged the protesters, without warning or provocation. ... The officers—the overwhelming majority without identification—launched themselves at the crowd and began to relentlessly beat and punch the protesters with fists and batons, aiming for their heads and faces.

Mounted officers then attacked from behind, forcing protesters forward into the line of police who were armed with batons. Protesters who were forced to the ground were trampled by horses, police and other protesters. ... Many protesters were trapped in the crush caused by the police, and attempts to escape were met with further violence. ... One friend of my daughter was hit repeatedly across his back and legs as he tried to escape the violence.

[Premier] Bracks praised police for an ‘absolutely outstanding’ job on 12 September. What part did he find outstanding? The unannounced baton charge? The failure of police to wear identification? The inability of protestors to identify police and hold them accountable for their actions? The response to alleged individual acts of violence by protestors with violence against the demonstration as a whole?

… A person (the parent/guardian) commits an offence if:

 (a) the parent/guardian is a parent or a guardian of a person who is being detained under preventative detention order (the detainee); and

(c) While the detainee is being detained under the order, the parent/guardian discloses information of the kind referred to in paragraph (3)(b) to another parent or guardian of the detainee.

One may ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. ... One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?