As the occupation of Post Office Square unravelled this week, it’s a pertinent question to ask why Brisbane proved so hostile to the occupy movement compared to other Australian cities.
I can think of a few tentative hypotheses, but none are particularly compelling. The difference in intensity and longevity between protests in Australia generally and protests in the States can probably be explained by the lack of catastrophic employment figures like those Stateside.
But the difference within Australia isn’t as easily explainable. QLD’s unemployment is comparable to that of the nation as a whole (even a touch higher if it’s significant).
Much of the online ridicule has revolved around the anti-scientific turn that the Brisbane protest appeared to take. The first night of livestreaming listed some of the participants’ grievances with modern society: vaccinations, chemtrails, fiat currency and so on. Despite the populist appeal of such conspiracy theories, promoting their importance does little to convince a populace that they should take the protest seriously.
But why did Brisbane’s protest take on this character? I can only guess that it’s because a more serious left was absent. I’m not going to pretend to understand how the Brisbane left works, but I’d say that’s where to look for an explanation of Occupy Brisbane’s panning.