It seems to have dawned on even the dim wits of the elite that they overplayed their hand with last weekend’s copy-cat demonstrations. Australians are venting their pent-up fury after being subjected to months of unnecessary, devastating restrictions, and then seeing thousands of bandwagon-jumping rent-a-crowds jamming into cities for their leftist fiesta – with the blessing of police, politicians, bureaucrats and legacy media.
Now the excuses are rolling out. And they don’t come any more feeble than socialist Victorian premier Daniel Andrews.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has rejected claims that he sent “mixed messages” ahead of Saturday’s Black Lives Matter protest, arguing police could not have arrested or fined the thousands of people who congregated in Melbourne’s CBD in contravention of social-distancing laws.
Yet, the same police managed to arrest and fine hundreds of anti-lockdown protesters, just two weeks earlier. The same police managed to swarm beaches and parks, issuing fines like lecherous drunks stuffing bills into a stripper’s g-string.
Ahead of the protest Mr Andrews urged Victorians to support the cause in ways that did not involve attending, but backed Victoria Police’s decision to issue fines to organisers but not attendees.
On Tuesday, speaking publicly for the first time since Saturday’s rally, Mr Andrews said his message that people should not go to the protest “couldn’t have been clearer”.
“Victoria Police’s response couldn’t have been clearer: don’t go to the protest,” he said. “But it’s simply not practical to be issuing thousands of fines or potentially locking up thousands and thousands of people … as Victoria Police made very clear, we weren’t able to stop people. Victoria Police made the right judgment.”
Andrews also gave a clear message that no action would be taken against protesters for violating previously iron-clad restrictions. How is that not a mixed message?
Andrews has also returned to pandemic scare-mongering mode immediately after the protests, warning, “We are nowhere near the end of it”. So, why weren’t his restrictions applied with full force to what could only be, according to his standard, a clear and present danger to public health?
In any case, is this the standard, now? Laws and restrictions only apply if the numbers are small enough?
Or do they only apply if you’re not on the political left?
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.