One of the interesting things about Shane Arden's current troubles is the idea that it was in some way an attack on Parliament. I'm remembering here the treatment of the 72 students who were arrested for trespassing (charges later dropped). A goodly part of the justification of the treatment of the students (and the MAGE lot) is the idea of either interfeering with the ability of Parliament to do its job, or attacking Parliament (even if that basically comes down to making the MPs feel uncomfortable.
Normally the attacker comes from outside Parliament. They are not an MP (or usually Parliamentary staff), so it is easy to see them as attacking Parliament. Not unlike how you would feel if a stranger walked up to your flat and started shouting at you.
But Shane Arden is different, he belongs to Parliament and has certain constitutional rights to be there and do the necessary to get the country functioning. Or something.
The interesting bit is that the big grey building contains both the House of Representatives (of which he is a member) and the physical location of the Government (to which he is an opponent).
So, in this sense, the Government could be understandably upset that an opponent drove a tractor at it. Which the House of Representatives isn't so much.
It also makes the distinction between Tizard doing in in 1987, while he was a Minister.
However, the Speaker is supposed to be impartial, and only associated with the House (not the Government). Which suggests that J Hunt is failing to make a fine but important distinction.
Posted by carla at September 17, 2003 01:05 PM