I know a couple of these “Gxxxx 20 defendants” (sorry, that word offends me), and I must say that to me they are true, awesome people that have been placed in an unenviable situation.

Their passion for people, our state and the future of our planet fills me with wonder and respect.

How this situation can be defies logic.

What says it all about today’s Australia is left to the final quote in this piece, “But in this country (Australia), he adds, “free speech is a residual right, it’s what’s left after everything is taken away”.

I am sorry that it has come to this.
I should have done more.
I don’t want to see what was destroyed and I have done little to stop this decline.

I am sorry.

Australia as I remember it was never like this.
We used to champion (in no particular order) freedom, the underdog, fair play, honesty, truth, humility, humanity, the so called “fair go”, respect, equality, “mateship” and so many things that made us the nation that all the world aspired to.

We did it easy because that’s our culture.

Now with bullying power there are some that seem determined to tower over those less fortunate, those with no recourse.
Greed is our new champion and our demise.

Australia, once known for its generous spirit is now regarded as a nauseating sore for its miserly and rank attitude, it’s lies, deception and lust above humanity.

It is sad, pathetic and so far removed from what used to be. It repels me, it makes me sick.

Australia, now is the time to renounce this filth, eject the vermin and regain what makes us all real.

That Gunns’ case is so slipshod and transparently an abuse of process is what distinguishes it from normal corporate bullying.

It appears to have been designed for Tasmania’s miasmic ethical climate, with the filing in Victoria being what those types would have considered a very clever bit of finishing bastardry.

All Tasmanians should read the transcripts, and get a real and sickening feel for the calibre of people running and ruining this state.

John Hayward

Isn’t there a simple issue here - if the 20 defendants didn’t do anything illegal, they will have a major victory over Gunns?

If the defendants are found to have breached civil law, then perhaps it can be argued that there may be an issue around where free speech and the law overlap. Don’t forget, these laws are there to protect everyone.

The court’s role is to sift through the evidence and determine an outcome consistent with the law. If the case is so slipshod as John Hayward suggests, then a big victory for the defendants can be expected, as well as a knock against Gunns.

I think the Gunns case is less about Gunns seeking redress against the defendants, more to warn those who may consider breaching the law to advance their cause against industrial forestry. The former has been a PR mess, but they may have succeeded with the latter.

Law?

Are you serious??

What has law got to do with anything?

Law is only for those who can afford it.

Blind Freddy could tell you that.

You are forgetting, Super Annoyed, that just having to prove they did nothing illegal is costing the 20 defendants considerable funds, and even if they win, there is no guarantee of having legal costs awarded, and many will be left permanently, irrevocably impoverished. That is not justice, or the correct use of law.

The very fact that Gunns allege a conspiracy across a diverse range of protest activities is aimed at making it too costly for concerned citizens and activists to even consider having an empathetic conversation because if Gunns gets its way the scenario will go something like this: 

Person 1: “Gee Gunns are logging an area where I live and it’s really upsetting most of the locals, so we’ve now decided to form a protest blockade because they won’t listen to our concerns”.

Person 2: “You too hey? We’ve been having troubles where we live too, and have considered taking some direct protest action”.

Gunns - “Aha! Conspiracy! Pay costs! Arrest them! Shut up and never dare speak again!”

If Gunns was simply pursuing some protestors over specific actions they considered to have seriously impacted upon their legal operations, it would be a fine line, but far more understandable than what they are actually doing.

Moreover, their action is highlighting (and taking advantage of) the profound inherent injustice in our legal system that allows a corporation the rights of an individual, and now we have 20 people who may well pay with their livelihoods and financial security just to prove their innocence and demonstrate how inherently flawed this approach is - does that sound reasonable or just to you? It is an abuse of the legal system and power, pure and simple. Gunns are quite clearly abusing their status as an equivalent individual citizen under Australian law to use their vast monetary and other resources to try and silence dissent.

Many other parts of the world have acted to ban these forms of civil suits; clearly Australia needs to do the same.