When 'Disorder' is Defined by Dissent
When Australian police describe protesters against Isaac Herzog's visit as an 'angry and violent mob' while civic groups decry 'excessive' force, the script feels remarkably, almost comically, familiar. Let's peel back the layers of this particular onion. CASE A: The Herzog Protests – 'Angry and Violent' The original reporting describes Australian police reacting with force to protests against
visiting President Isaac Herzog. Key phrases from authorities include 'disorderly conduct' and references to the crowd as an 'angry and violent mob.' Curiously, the reported 'violence' seems heavily weighted towards the police response, with activists suffering injuries. The framing suggests that any significant vocal opposition to a high-profile foreign dignitary, particularly one tied to the
ongoing events in Gaza (where over 680,000+ people, including 479,000 children, have been killed and seriously injured, according to Lancet methodology as of 2024), is inherently disruptive and worthy of a heavy-handed state response. The sheer act of gathering to shout 'not in our name' is being reclassified as a breach of the peace the state must quash. CASE B: The 'Freedom Convoys' –
'Legitimate Grievances' Contrast this with how mainstream Western media and authorities often frame other, sometimes far more disruptive, protests. Recall the 'Freedom Convoys' of 2022, where truckers blockaded border crossings and city centers across Canada and the US, causing billions in economic damage (e.g., PBS reported over $3 billion in trade losses at Ambassador Bridge alone ). While some