The Next Week of Rebellion: March 22, 2021

Dear Rebels,

Last night we held a meeting to discuss the next date of rebellion, with rebels present from every state as well as New Zealand and London.

This was following on from an initial meeting to start the process of setting the date on Wednesday 25th November, which had narrowed it down to March and April and decided on some positive criteria for a date.

Based on the criteria, I narrowed down possible dates further to a choice between the week of March 22, and April 27. You’ve given your feedback on these dates.

At the meeting last night we reviewed the feedback you’ve given us.

The form was filled out by 28 rebels during the week, from all states.

To the question “Which date would you prefer the next rebellion to be?”, 19 picked March 22 - 28, and 8 picked April 26 - May 2 (I abstained).

To the question “Would you participate?”, 23 of you answered yes if the rebellion were on March 22, and 16 answered yes if the rebellion were on April 26.

Qualitative feedback indicated most rebels choosing March 22 preferred to have their rebellions on the earlier date so that they could hit the streets sooner.

After some discussion in breakout rooms last night, the rebels attending the meeting yesterday unanimously decided that the next week of rebellion should be March 22nd .

So, for rebels organising major actions happening this week you can confidently tell the media, your action rebels, and bystanders that XR will be disrupting these cities again, Australia-wide, on March 22.

There were action rebels from all state capitals at the meeting, so what’s remaining is for them to get buy-in from their actions groups to carry out major rebellions in the week of March 22.

March 22 is appropriate for a prolongued mobilisation nation-wide for rebel groups that wish to organize one - and we will be returning for a visioning meeting in the first couple of weeks of January to reflect on recent actions and kick-off the organizing of the March 22 rebellion.

With love and rage,



Some ideas for Mar 22nd

From mobilisation point of view – we had a massive number of sign-ups last year during the spring rebellion when we had day after day of actions and were on the front pages (or a lot closer) of newspapers and in the TV news daily vs the non-noticeable effects (in sign-ups) of 1 day actions – no matter how sacrificial and disruptive they are.

Thus the imperative is on continuity – day after day.

I propose a very simple way to do this:

Peak-hour marches. AM and PM. Monday to Friday.

This is very simple to organise. Everyone meets at one place (or if we have the numbers – multiple places) and we march onto the road and walk around for quite a while.

The experience of the Rebel Rhythm parade from the recent festival was that a very small amount of people got to march around with a massive police escort because they knew we weren’t planning on getting arrested. Now I am not saying we need to ask permission from cops – what I am saying is that there is the potential that small-ish groups (I would suggest 50 at minimum because marching around in a group of 10 requires A LOT of energy and is not that fun) can go off on peak-hour marches. Or we could just have 1 (or 2) big ones. Every peak hour for 1 week.

And I suggest not the CBD (this is regarding Naarm/Melbourne) but major routes such as Punt Rd/Hoddle st, maybe Bell St, Alexandra Parade, etc. etc. Each day can be a different location. The point is that outreach to the pedestrian public is actually pretty ineffectual and minimal during these things, what’s gonna be more effective is the disruption to peak hour commuter traffic, and I suggest we have de-escalation trained outreach people who walk through the congested traffic handing out leaflets- the leaflets could even say “phone up so and so talkback radio and tell them that these protesters are saying we will have food shortages and mass starvation if we don’t act on the climate”

We can have a theme for the series based around TIME IS UP. And possibly multiple sub-themes. There could be marches where everyone brings clocks of some sort.

E.g. this day is for the animals, this day is for refugees, this day is for the old and the young, etc. That way we can create a complete narrative. And can bring in allied groups as well. Which they have been so successful at in the UK but not so much here. By setting the date now we can invite in allied groups - come, join us, let us no longer be divided… Human rights and climate are inextricable linked! or Animal rights and climate are inextricably linked, etc.

The advantage of having peak-hour marches is that people are quite likely to be able to attend, e.g. before and after work. If the route is publicised in advance They can even meet enroute. By publicly advertising the location/routes we can also FAIRLY warn traffic (and get press-coverage) by telling them to expect delays, etc.

The other important thing is that this is massive escalation on Weekend/midday events (which we have now done enough of). Key to a successful campaign is ESCALATION

Lastly, there can be highly sacrificial actions combining with these marches throughout the week - e.g. the banner drop in Brisbane recently (See here 1:12:00) which continued to hold up traffic after the march had continued. Or other higher-risk actions not connected to the marches. Basically if we have a consistent and disruptive base – these marches – the news will follow it and we will have more traction for other actions which A.G’s can do during the day to further our message. Alternatively (or additionally), at the “end” of the march or at strategic, high engagement locations along the routes, people could sit down on the road and be prepared to be arrested, to demonstrate to onlookers (and media crews pre-alerted) the sacrifice people are willing to make. The people who do this should be exemplary characters for breaking down stereotypes , e.g. mothers, young kids, etc.

Lastly – the key is to make it accessible for people to come along who find out about it from the media. Thus it could be advertised very simply.


Monday 7:30 4:00 Carlton Gardens Tennis place TIME IS UP
Tuesday 7:30 4:00 Birrarung Marr
Wednesday Day off Day off Festival celebration In a park? Celebrate and trainings…
Thursday 6:30 etc
Friday 8:00 5 etc

We need a shared definition of our aim for Mar 22

is it

10,000 people engaged across the country? or are we aiming for 10,000 in each city? (Do we need national goals or shall we define it locally?)

Is it just one day, or is it day after day, one week, or what?

What’s the Vibe in other cities?

1 Like

This 10,000 number came from the Mobilisation group. None of the discussions in Actions have been about 10,000 as being a thing. If you can get 10,000 across the country to participate that would be cool, but the main thing was having major disruptive actions in each of the cities participating. Visioning is being done at the moment by the participating state actions groups.


Hey there, I’m from the website working group.

I see the URL for and QR code is on the artwork for March 22.
We’ll consider how to update the website for any people interested in XR as a result of either seeing the URL or seeing / hearing about of the actions in person or via media coverage.

Are you planning any external publicity ahead of March 22nd? I think flyers were going to go up. If so, we need a plan for how to channel newcomers to the right people, organisers of actions I would assume, or perhaps you want them to go to welcoming first? I think the CTA is ‘contact local group’ atm.

There are some great ideas in this XR UK Actions update.
One thing that I think is worth bearing in mind is that they have actions March 13 and April 1 (not exactly the same as our March 22 date, but close), AND May 17. I think we have extra power if we link up internationally - especially this year when there is are international climate negotiations in Glasglow in November - a dream come true for UK XR!

Whatever we do in March, I’d like to see it as the first of a series of escalating actions building up to May 17 and then another wave of action in about October (ie a month or so before the COP and possibly during the lead-up to the next federal election).

If the federal election is earlier (eg August or September) then I think it would be good to add an earlier wave of action during the election campaign, focussing on “our political system is broken” not on who to vote for.

The implications for March are that we should leave room for escalation over the rest of the year and not necessarily do all our biggest boldest action ideas in March.

Hi Hobbo. Thank you so much for being on to this.

One proposal from the mobilisation group is to channel people to the fortnightly Grow the rebellion national zooms - and then from there connect them to state mobilisation teams/action teams or wherever they are a best fit.

We have set up Registered Zoom links for the next two gatherings - Wed 27 at 7pm AEDT

and then Sunday 7 Feb at 3 pm AEDT

Would it be possible to have these embedded and up-to-date on the website ?

this is the event description

Hey there.
I’ve created an event for 27th Jan on XRAus FB which will pull into overnight.
I’ll do 7th Feb soon.

Do you want me to create events for the weeks following 7th Feb? They are enabled on the zoom registration links.

I’ll also link to this, once we have a header banner on the website. We can only have one url, so would you prefer to the weekday or weekend page?

FYI, to get any events onto, or the national facebook page (events are created in FB then pulled into the website automatically), please send a request to including the action network url. We’ve also started monitoring for any requests to that channel for publicity. I’m also part of the team that sorts those, so can action this request without you needing to post elsewhere in this case.


Thanks Sarah,

No it’s different Action Network URLS for both of those.

Thanks - oh and thanks for instructions re: events on social page :slight_smile:

have you got the AN url for the sunday events pls?

Thank you

@ageorge @ManicMax @JaneM Hi all – I have not been involved in these discussions but reading the posts above prompted some thinking. I have written out – in a pretty lengthy post – my thoughts on issues such as alliances with other groups. I am sure some of the issues I outline have been considered and thought through – so I offer these perspectives for further reflection. If there seems to be any worth in what I have said I would be interested to hear what others think.

I will address two issues. These both concern XR’s explicit approach of being apolitical and beyond politics and of being agnostic when it comes to specific policy prescriptions or ideological positions. That is policy responses are to be decided in Citizen’s Assemblies which are designed to increase the democratic legitimacy of those responses. In this sense XR does not advocate for any specific policy but seeks to create Citizen’s Assemblies to address demands 1 and 2. This is the genius and strength of XR. Do others think that forming alliances with other activist groups may compromise this approach – and also create confusion in the general public as to what XR is actually advocating for?

In my experience some segments of the activist community have very specific ideas about contemporary society and the way in which they view Australian culture and history. There are deeper philosophical issues here that can be traced back to debates in postmodern and postcolonial theory and the legitimacy - or lack thereof - of certain monolithic conceptions of the Australian population as seen through the lens of the colonised/coloniser binary - and also how the process of colonization is to be valued. These theories have now moved from the academe to the activist community and the general population.

Some strands in this school of thought argue that Australia is the expression of a hegemonic Western, patriarchal and racist ideology with very little in terms of redeeming features – and it sees colonised populations as existing in a power struggle with the racist settler population and its institutions. In this sense it operates on the basis of a coloniser/colonised binary. This critique informs many contemporary activist groups where it is assumed to be axiomatic. While this view is legitimate to a degree it has been contested on many fronts in the postcolonial scholarly literature – for example in work on cultural hybridity and “race”.

I will not go into that literature here but merely look at how the views held by some in the activist community are open to contestation – and which in some cases are in fact contradicted by empirically based scholarship. My purpose is not to argue which view is true or false – but merely to highlight this is contested intellectual terrain. XR seeks to ground its activism in empirically based peer reviewed science. However, some of the views in the activist community are not so robustly grounded and are more in the realm of values and beliefs – some of which I will suggest are without empirical support.

I will start with the most sensitive and controversial. I have had many conversations with activists who claim Australia is an oppressive and racist colonial state – and that the police enforce that oppression. Some of the evidence that this is the case is derived from differential outcomes between Indigenous Australians and the rest of the population. For example, high incarceration rates and high rates of death in custody are presumed to be caused by racism – whether on the part of the police and judicial system or merely the ambient racism in society. While I am not denying racism exists and that police often ‘protect their own’ when they assault and mistreat people, thereby denying justice to Aboriginal people, these factors do not explain the overall trends in the data. In other words it is actually unclear from the data that racism is the cause here - as many in the activist community (I would argue mistakenly) assert.

In fact The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody actually stated Indigenous and non-Indigenous inmates died in custody at about the same rate – which can be found here: NATIONAL REPORT VOLUME 1 - 1.3 THE DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBERS OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE IN CUSTODY. This means that racism is not the cause. In other words bad treatment of inmates and dereliction of duty of care impacts both Indigenous and non-Ingenious inmates equally. What the report actually found was an overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prison which is related to higher crime and incarcerations rates - which are themselves related to issues such as disadvantage, poverty and the lingering impacts of colonization. Further, it was also found that foul play on the part of the police was not evident – which is outlined here: NATIONAL REPORT VOLUME 1 - CHAPTER 3 THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONERS AS TO THE DEATHS.

While the imprisonment of people for not paying fines is a practice that should be discontinued and there is definite dereliction of duty of care - racism does not seem to be the cause of the overrepresentation noted in the report. What explains the high representation is actual high incarceration rates – which are a result of high rates of offending. For example as Indigenous academic and activist, Professor Marcia Langton, highlights in this lecture, over 60% of Aboriginal men in jail are there for domestic violence and homicide: Indigenous Violence & Incarceration - Prof. Marcia Langton and Josephine Cashman. It should be noted the imprisonment of these men is providing justice for Aboriginal women who are the victims of these crimes.

The causes here are multifactorial – and racism on the part of the police and judicial system seems to not be one of them. There are broader issues such as poverty, low educational outcomes and lack of employment opportunities that seem to be at play here. Addressing these issues are complex and it will take many years to do so. This is why Indigenous leaders such as Noel Pearson focus on education and employment in the hope that this will empower his people and consequently reduce rates of social dysfunction and interpersonal violence.

One of the concerns I have is the belief among many in the activist community that the issues I have discussed above are evidence of the racism and violence of the police state. So my question would be: if XR forms alliances with other activist groups will those groups be promoting the ideas I have outlined above – ideas I do not believe are based on empirical evidence but are more the expression of a broader ideological outlook?

One other issue worth considering is problems in Indigenous communities have gotten worse since the 1980s. There is a paradox here: since the 1980s and into the present Australia – both legislatively and culturally – has become dramatically less racist. Yet during this period problems in Aboriginal communities have gotten dramatically worse. So while the narrative that Aboriginal people’s problems are caused by systemic racism and racism in the police and judicial system is ideologically appealing, it is one not supported by the data. Consequently, there are other factors involved – and to genuinely help Aboriginal people these factors need to be addressed. This paradox, and potential solutions, have been dealt with by Peter Sutton, Rosemary Neil, Noel Pearson and others. Note that all of these researchers are critical of systemic racism as the main cause here and look to other factors such as poverty, low educational outcomes and intergenerational welfare dependency. Link to these resources here - I have also added a video of a lecture given at UNSW by Indigenous academic Professor Marcia Langton on factors contributing to high incarceration rates and the need to provided better protection and support services to Indigenous women who are victims of violent assault and homicide:

The Politics Of Suffering: Indigenous Australia and The End of the Liberal Consensus

White Out: How politics is killing black Australia

Is welfare dependency ‘welfare poison’? An assessment of Noel Pearson’s proposals for Aboriginal welfare reform

Our right to take responsibility

Indigenous Violence & Incarceration - Prof. Marcia Langton and Josephine Cashman

Where I feel we are on safer ground is alliances with activist groups seeking to protect Indigenous land and natural heritage sites – for example opposition to neo-colonial lands grabs such as the Adani mine, opposition to Fracking in the NT and rewilding of Ingenious lands. I envisage a strong Indigenous voice in a Citizen’s Assemblies - and I would like to see massive investment in land management, rewilding and eco-tourism programs for Indigenous youth - particularly in remote areas where there are a distinct lack of employment opportunities. This seems to me to be an important way to link ecological and social justice.

The issue of XR forming an alliance with activists advocating for refugees presents similar problems. In my experience such activists also see Australia as the expression of a hegemonic Western patriarchal and racist ideology with very little in terms of redeeming features – and consequently they feel the broader concept of the nation state has no legitimacy. The obverse of this view is we should have an Open Borders policy as the desire to secure borders is inherently exclusionary – and by that measure racist if not fascist.

While this view may be popular among the activist community – it is not popular among the general public who tend to favour securing borders to varying degrees (I should point out there is a distinction between opposing the inhumane and atrocious treatment of refugees in offshore detention by the current government and advocating Open Borders and abolishing the nation state). While we are predicted to face an ecological and climate induced humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions in the coming years, it is not clear that Open Borders is the only – or preferred - solution. For example, a Global Green New Deal may be a means of helping people for example in Bangladesh and other climate impact prone regions adapt to changing conditions in their own region. But this is not something we can petition our government for in March and October – this would require massive international effort. I envision a Global Citizen’s Assembly formulating policies to deal with these issues in the coming years. And this is something XR could advocate for on a global scale as the movement grows.

Probably the most prominent critique of Open Borders policies is to be found in the work of the Hegelian-Marxist philosopher Slavoy Zizek. Zizek argues we need to attend to the conditions in the country of origin - which are often exacerbated by Western Imperial incursions - that lead to refugee crises. By merely opening borders we are treating the symptoms and not the cause. A Global Green New Deal would be a way of dealing with the issue at its point of origin. Interestingly, Zizek argues that some kind of global socialism or economic support for countries facing ecological breakdown within their own countries could have bipartisan support - not only is it humanitarian in orientation but it addresses concerns among the general public of millions of refugees arriving at their borders.

Of course I am not necessarily advocating one of these positions over another - for example the Global North may need to both increase humanitarian intake and enact a Global Green Deal. My point is the Open Borders platform of the left is one that is open to contestation - and there seems to be no objective moral imperative to prefer Open Borders over assistance in country of origin.

Here is some material on and by Zizek:

The basic dynamic here is that ostensibly left-wing parties have put the right wing in the driver’s seat and have no strategy other than to denounce the very right-wing racism that their preferred policies actually stoke. The refugee article [by Zizek] aims to unmask a similar dynamic in more radical leftist circles. Among leftist commentators, academics, and online activists as well, there is an abdication of any responsible policy-making that takes actual-existing reality into account. In its place, we find only empty rhetoric aimed at guaranteeing the speaker’s ideological purity.

From: (How to Read Žižek on the Refugee Crisis)

Other works on the same topic by Zizek:

Against The Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours

Slavoj Zizek: In the Wake of Paris Attacks the Left Must Embrace Its Radical Western Roots

I think my overarching concern is if we say we are having marches in alliance with other groups how do we prevent people from having signs and advocating positions as part of XR – positions of the kind I have outlined above? It is not our job to advocate specific policy prescriptions – and having such alliances may confuse the public. It may result in lack of clarity in both our messaging and media coverage. This is why I feel it important to stick to our 3 demands – and that a Citizen’s Assembly for all Australians is how we form policy responses.

So in conclusion if XR did form alliances with activists groups, and that if as a consequence the movement became a lobbying platform for any of the above ideologies, I would no longer be a supporter. Also I would not attend the actions in March and October. And I know there are many well informed Australians, who would otherwise support XR, who would feel the same way as I do. Part of the reason is I do not share the conception of Australia that many hold in the activist community - and I would hope there is room for those of us with different views under the broad tent of XR. What is brilliant about XR is its apolitical orientation and advocacy for a Citizen’s Assembly. If it became a platform for advocating for the above ideologies I think that would deprive XR of what is best and unique about the movement.

And a final word on marches - this may not be a problem but I thought I would mention it. I thought that Mass Mobilisation was about sustained blockades in order to bring the government to the negotiating table – or to force their hand to react in a draconian manner and hence produce a backlash effect? It is not clear to me how having numerous marches in different places and at different times focusses our resources (in fact I thought the premise of XR was marches from A to B have proved ineffectual and what is required is sustained blockades, civil disobedience and mass arrest). The UK Rebellion in April 2019 had this focused approach with specific blockades where people congregate and sing, read poetry and where a hundred or so people sit on the ground holding the space while the police arrest them. And this is what caused maximum impact and launched XR globally. The second rebellion in the UK in October 2019 did not adopt this approach but had many actions dispersed around London – which is one of the reasons it was considered less successful than April 2019. People and resources were dispersed around the city as opposed to focused in a few key specific locations.

I attended the Spring Rebellion in Vic in 2019. While it was great it lacked the focused blockades that occurred during the April UK 2019 action. There was not a specific date and place where a blockade would begin – instead different groups organized their own actions at different times and in different places. This resulted in dispersed (and hence reduced) impact around the city. While these actions were excellent in order to raise the profile of XR – it was an awesome place to begin from - they fell short of the sustained blockades we saw in the initial UK Rebellion. If all of those groups in Vic had occupied one or two major intersections on the same day they may have had greater impact. Is the thinking that the March actions, with marches being organised in order to build up to bigger blockades in October where a week long blockade will occur? If so I see the rationale.

My concern is if we advertise numerous events people will pick and choose which they want to attend – which will disperse our resources as opposed to focus them. Would we not be better off saying everyone prepare to occupy the city (exact locations to be announced) on the 22nd? Then once we have occupied spaces, we can organise marches from their – if they are at all needed. However, if we have occupied the CBD and cause maximum economic disruption why do you even need a march? Once they had occupied the major intersection in London that became a magnet for people to come into the city – and party - with a DJ on the pink boat in Oxford Circus. Having marches may prevent this from happening. Anyway that was a longwinded post – but hopefully it provides stuff to think about and discuss.

I’ve created events on FB for all sessions (four upcoming at my count).
I noticed the date on is now ‘past’, if you wanted to update to Feb 24.


For those of you looking for options of focus, both for themes and locations to target may I offer these ideas for thought and consideration?

I created a thread here -

That has a couple of articles that outline the financial and economic risk/impact of the policies and lack of effective climate action by the current [and previous] Australian Federal Governments.

The federal and state public sector superannuation funds need to divest, as well as the Future Fund. Most private vehicles are already committing to do that, and the overseas pension funds are well on their way.

The LNP are most likely highly keen that the public sector and Future Funds assist in taking all of these stranded assets off their hands, and those of their members and financial backers.

Would you like to encourage Australia’s middle class investor class into the streets for non-violent direct action?

Would you like to promote and facilitate the de-funding and de-financing of the fossil fuel industry and the monopolist/oligopolistic capitalist class of oppresive, bourgeois overlords? [forgive the cant and rhetoric, I’m not very practiced at this]

This campaign -

is already working quite effectively to promote the transition of private funds. Would it help to promote and support demand to have government controlled funds sell out sooner rather than later, before the share value declines even further?

Future Fund headquarters are in Melbourne. The Australian Public Sector Super fund has it main office in Canberra. I would assume each state public sector fund has their offices in the respective capital city.

Are these highly visible, easily disrupted urban locations where significant though small numbers could have high impact?

Actually, for the Future Fund it would be best if it moved all the fossil fuel company investments into a new discrete fund that becomes publicly tradable. Then all of the Federal politicians [including former] and staffers can have their salary and remuneration [including Super] moved to payment of these tradeable shares as their default setting. They could choose to opt out and go back to existing payment arrangements, but that would be publicly available information. Along with a public record of all of their sales of those publicly traded stock of fossil fuel investment portfolio.

Ditto for all government payments to News Ltd, Westfarmers and Macquarie media groups. Oh, and the per ballot payment political parties get after the elections.

I’m sure they would all be clamoring to sign up, what with coal and gas having such great prospects and being an integral part of the future energy mix of the global economy. Or, is that just a big scam to try and prop up the share price while they unwind their own exposure?

And like these folks -

So, when will the ethical fund options become the default, and the fossil-fuel; gambling and drugs/alcohol; toxic waste and predatory lendors funds become the options people could choose to divert their savings into?

What do we want? … When did we want it? …

I know it is the week prior to the 22nd, but some people may see an opportunity in this -

Market Forces have commercial entities in their scope, which doesn’t really include the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, State Government Super funds and the Future Fund. I’m trying to find some CPSU contacts I saw last year [or was it 2019?] who were trying to arrange CPSU members and campaign on climate issues.

I know the call was out for ideas and suggestions for March activities and events, so thought it might give a focus or trigger thoughts in others. I’m guessing I am not the only member here in ACT, nor nationally.
7 London Circuit
2601 Canberra, ACT, Australia

Annual Member Meeting, Tuesday 16th March, 5:30 - 7:00pm AEDT
Hosted online
Register by 14th March

To register, submit a question or find out more

If we could get some wording members could use to promote raising questions about when will CSC divest from fossil fuels and carbon intensive industries? What are their plans? Would they at least move those investments into a discrete fund members can choose to disassociate/divest from?

Is there any interest in try Discobedience or other awareness raising or media engaging actions at their offices, or elsewhere in the lead up to that date?

Here is part of the reply I got from Market Forces about the CSC Annual Members Meeting. They were already on it!

“We’ve got a zoom call at 6 pm on the 2nd of March to discuss it all. You’re welcome to come and invest [sic, I assume it is invite] other people that are interested.

Here is the zoom link:
Market Forces is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: CSC AGM prep
Time: Mar 2, 2021 06:00 PM Australia/Melbourne
Join Zoom Meeting

Meeting ID: 897 0402 0551

Passcode: 988659”

@JaneM Geelong Design Week is 18-28th March with 16 events happening on 22nd organised by UNESCO and City Council. design week calendar