Court bans marchers from security zone

PROTESTERS at Saturday's main rally against the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum may risk arrest through "non-violent civil disobedience" after a court win by police stripped organisers of their preferred route through the security zone. Full Story »

Posted by Mike LaBonte
Tags Help
Subjects: World
Topics: Asia
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Mike LaBonte - Sep 5, 2007 - 2:51 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Member_photo_thumb
3.3
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008

Non-Australian reader doesn't get a sense of an Australian's right to organize and protest. We also don't get a good sense of the agenda of the protesters.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Mike_hs2_thumb
3.7
by Mike LaBonte - Oct. 1, 2008

Seems to be the most complete and up to date article on this story so far.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Silhouette_sml
3.8
by Peter Henry - Oct. 1, 2008

Terse, factual description of the tug-of-war between the APEC demonstration organizers and the Sydney police, who just as the police did in NYC during the Republican Convention, arbitrarily and at the last minute denied a permit to force a change in a march. This time, though, the organizers say they are ready for nonviolent civil disobedience, so they may well stick to their original plans. The police are so eager in their search for violent disruptions, I hope they don't overreact ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Silhouette_sml
2.9
by Lisa Flay - Oct. 1, 2008

I would like to know who those violent splinter groups are. There is no evidence provided to suggest that there was great risk of violence except Mr. Cullen's word. It's always good to have any coverage of protests. Most in this country are grossly undercovered.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.5
by mike placona - Oct. 1, 2008
See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.6

Good
from 5 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
3.5
Fairness
3.8
Information
4.0
Sourcing
4.2
Style
3.5
Accuracy
3.5
Balance
3.5
Context
2.6
Popularity
3.7
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.8
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
4.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »

Topics

(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!