Thou shalt not annoy on Youth Day

[Simon Anders]

I'm black, so if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to have a parade down my street. I wouldn't protest or go outside and throw stuff at them because I don't agree with their policies or beliefs. I just wouldn't go to the parade.

Which is certainly your choice. However it seems fundamental to me that others who choose to could stand on the side of that parade and show - non-violently and hence up until now legally their distaste. This does many things. For example if the KKK parades through a white neighborhood and many white people come out with signs that are anti-gay this shows that the neighborhood is not aligned with the parade.

I dislike that people protest gay cruises, etc. But I do not want a country where they cannot do that.

 

[Asguard]

cutsie we arnt talking about a funeral. I agree with you that there is no place for protest at a funeral (well, there was that former NT pollie who was acused of rape but died before he was tried, i can understand his victoms wanting to protest THAT).

WE ARNT TALKING ABOUT A FUNERAL, we are talking about an event put on for the main purpose of making George Pell look good.

Well lets look at HIS sins:
Got involved in the debate for RU486 ORDERING pollies to vote against the bill
Got involved in the stem cell debate ORDERING pollies to vote against the bills
Argued agaisnt legislation to permit Gay marrage and orgainsted protests at matigra (he fucked himself with this one)
Told a guy who had had his complaint of sexual assult sustained by the courts AND by the church's OWN investigation that there was no grounds for his case
Covered up other abuse cases until FORCED to deal with the situation by public outcry


Now all these but the last one are political actions which means he is quite willing to get into political debate when it suits HIM. He should take it when it comes HIS way to.

im sorry Cutsie but protest is THE ONLY WAY to show sociaties anger with the goverment or with any OTHER organisation be them enron or the catholic church. This is not about respect for a funeral, its about showing goverment, the church AND the world that we are not happy with ....
the way sexual abuse cases were treated,
the fact that the church never apologised to the aborigionals they took from there homes,
the way they treat gays in general and CATHOLIC gays most of all
or symply the fact that sydney has had to put up with these draconian laws and traffic restrictions for the third time in a few years

 

[Simon Anders]

Catholics have protested regularly, including contexts where people were trying to have good time.

One example: Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ. Here the Catholics had such a limited view, not realizing how devout the film actually was. I found their protests annoying and close-minded. However, I am glad they have the right to protest.

The idea that, for example, wearing an anti-Last Temptation of Christ t-shirt could land one of them in jail

I mean...

I would pay the ACLU to defend that Catholic person.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

It sounds like there is a lot of pent up anger about the Catholic church's decisions as of late. Would the protest really be peaceful? I have no problem with people standing on the corner with picket signs and they should be able to wear whatever they want, but once they start yelling and spitting, which they probably will. It is no longer peaceful.

 

[Simon Anders]

It sounds like there is a lot of pent up anger about the Catholic church's decisions as of late. Would the protest really be peaceful? I have no problem with people standing on the corner with picket signs and they should be able to wear whatever they want, but once they start yelling and spitting, which they probably will. It is no longer peaceful.

So we should first acknowledge that you disapprove then of the law which makes it illegal to wear certain things and say certain things. So we are in agreement on that.

I am not sure how you know that they will yell and spit.

but,in any case, when should people not be allowed to yell and spit.

As far as the anger at the Catholic church...perhaps you should respond to the specific points Asguard made, instead of implying that people somehow simply have anger. You could show him that the anger is not justified by providing information or countering points he made.

It seems you have a lot of pent up anger at protesters, but this does not make your arguments weaker or stronger.

You also avoided responding to the fact that Catholics use their rights of protest when they feel like it.

 

[lepustimidus]

Wait, so people are allowed to hassle politicians (such as Pauline Hanson) with bullshit protests, but you can't do the same with the Pope and his followers? Why not?

 

[Asguard]

well MH i do admit there is a difference between pollies and other organisations, they are in parliment to represent US and if WE feel they are doing something wrong is a DUTY to show them that (an example the protests against the decision to go into iraq) That being said the catholic church has lost its right to be excempt from political protest because it has stuck its nose into Politics (Note the capital P, because we are talking about parliment and goverment politics) to often. Thats besides those who wish to protest INSIDE the church about the regression to pre vatican 2

 

[John99]

Some of you should join Fred Phelps' protests. You would fit right in. I dont see much difference.

 

[Bells]

Then where else are protestors suppposed to protest at? :shrug:

That's the thing with these laws. You don't even need to be protesting. You just need to be annoying to a participant of the event. There is no definition or grounds to stipulate what constitutes annoyance. So it is up to individual interpretation of the officers and volunteers who will be present in various sites across the city during the course of the month while the "pilgrims" are here.

Nothing seems to ruin your day like protesters. I've been to funerals that had protesters flown in just to protest. It's was the saddest thing ever. Or a gay families' cruise that a friend of mine was taking had protesters there yelling terrible things when her 9 year old was present. Those things were disgusting and utterly disrespectful, I have very little tolerance for outright disrespect so maybe that's why I have a chip on my shoulder. My personal policy is if you don't like something (that isn't causing any harm to anyone, just a groups ideals)don't go. I'm black, so if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to have a parade down my street. I wouldn't protest or go outside and throw stuff at them because I don't agree with their policies or beliefs. I just wouldn't go to the parade.

This isn't just about protesting though. And this is not a funeral.

For example, if a gay couple decide to walk down the road near or at a designated site, are holding hands and/or kiss or hug, someone could find that annoying and that couple could end up being told to move on and cease with their behaviour and if they do not do so immediately, could face a fine of $5500.

All that is required is to be annoying to any participant of the event.

You need to realise is that the city of Sydney has a lot of residential areas, apartment buildings and such. A lot of public areas where people should be free to be themselves, to wear whatever t-shirt they want, to live their lives as they always have, without being legislated for being annoying to some visitors who are here for a month and facing the possibility of a fairly hefty fine. As Justice Branson pointed out, you don't even have to be participating in any annoying behaviour. You just need to be annoying to an individual who is a participant at the event. There is no definition as to what would be deemed annoying. As I said above, a gay couple kissing in the streets of Sydney could be deemed annoying to a WYD participant and that couple could end up being fined. Someone dressed in Muslim dress could be deemed annoying to someone going to the WYD event, and could end up being fined. Someone who is wearing a different religious symbol could also face the same fate. The laws themselves have the potential to be extremely discriminatory to the people living and working in Sydney and it is completely unfair.

What? Should the residents of Sydney be forced to vacate their homes, lest they be found to be annoying to the "pilgrims"?

I believe the legislation written for the Youth day event seems rather vague as far as what is considered annoying and what they can't wear. Even though I have to deal with legislation like that all the time here the US. If what the catholic church is doing is making so many people upset then they don't they host their own parade encouraging change?

That's the funny thing about this. It's not the Catholic Church that has demanded these draconian laws be put in place. It is the NSW State Government that has quietly brought enacted them, to protect the "pilgrims".

And people can't protest to encourage change. It is now illegal in Sydney as said protest could be deemed to be annoying to the "pilgrims". Even the Catholic Church has agreed that the laws that already existed prior to this one were more than sufficient and that people should be free to protest, and more importantly, be free to go about their daily lives without being subject to partial strip searches for walking down the street or going to a museum or park in Sydney. And that's what these laws have done. The police now have extraordinary powers to perform partial strip searches in many public areas around the city, as well as make up their own minds about what could be annoying.

And frankly, it is downright obscene.

 

[Asguard]

John:
really?
you dont see a difference between protesting at a funeral and protesting at the LIVING pope?

 

[John99]

Really. These are the same people who give homosexuals a hard time or give minorities a hard time. You can make up any excuse you want but it makes no difference, same type.

There will always be people who are different than you, believe in different things and we dont decide for them what to believe or how to live their lives.

 

[Asguard]

did you READ bells post?
Did you READ mine?

There are people DYING because of the catholic church in africa, there are same sex couples whos lives are an apsolute missery because of what THIS pope has done and what george Pell has done. Not to mention there stance on abortion and the protests in america BY CATHOLICS outside abortion clinics.

None of this however has anything to do with the fact that as bells has said is 2 people are KISSING IN THERE OWN FRONT YARD and a "pillgram" finds offence then they can be charged for what they are doing IN THERE OWN HOME.

 

[Asguard]

Activists challenge 'broad' Youth Day laws

ABC News
Posted Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:41pm AEST

Audio: WYD law challenge centres on 'vagueness' (PM) Map: Sydney 2000
The Federal Court has been told the New South Wales Government's World Youth Day regulations are too broad and could be applied to members of the public going about their everyday business.

Two student activists, with the help of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, are challenging the State Government's regulations

The regulations allow police to detain and fine anyone who annoys or inconveniences World Youth Day pilgrims.

The activist's lawyers told the court the area where the powers apply include train stations as far away as Parramatta and Campbelltown, and most of the CBD including the courtroom where the hearing is being held.

The court has also heard the powers are already in effect and will be for the entirety of July.

Lawyers for the NSW Government will reply this afternoon.

Viewed 13/07/08 at 16:02

So by rights if George Pell disagrees with the findings of this court, he could have the JUDGE arested for "causing annoyance"

 

[Bells]

Really. These are the same people who give homosexuals a hard time or give minorities a hard time. You can make up any excuse you want but it makes no difference, same type.

There will always be people who are different than you, believe in different things and we dont decide for them what to believe or how to live their lives.

Which is beside the point in this discussion. This discussion is about the fact that people living in the Sydney CBD are being forced to adopt new laws for one event, laws that will impact greatly on their day to day lives as they travel to the CBD to work, and those who happen to live within the zones earmarked by the legislation itself.

There is no definition of what could be constituted annoying behaviour. It is left entirely up to the "pilgrims" of the WYD event to decide for themselves and for the police and volunteers. This new legislation is so broad and far reaching, it has the real capacity to be highly discriminatory to those living and/or working in the area.

I have a lot of family who live in Sydney, all of whom are strict Catholics, and they are angry as hell that these laws were ushered in in secret. They don't know if their actions, what they wear, say or do might be considered annoying to the participants of the WYD events. Half the people in the area weren't even told the laws were being put in place. So a person, who is not aware, could end up being fined $5500 because he/she was deemed to be annoying to a "pilgrim" for kissing his/her gay lover in the street, or for wearing an item of clothing that a "pilgrim" deems offensive or annoying. If they question or attempt to discuss their 'moving on' orders from the police or volunteers (after all, who wouldn't want some form of clarification or protest about being told to 'move on' for doing nothing wrong and doing something that was legal last month and don't know it is now suddenly illegal for a month), they face a hefty fine.

 

[Asguard]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23967916-953,00.html

Youth Day laws under the microscope

Sydney Morning Herald
July 11, 2008 - 6:27PM


The NSW solicitor-general has agreed a World Youth Day (WYD) protester could be fined for tying a shoelace, under sweeping police powers for the six-day event.

And the commercial provisions of the WYD laws have come under the microscope, with a Federal Court judge questioning whether they constitute an abuse of power.

Justice Catherine Branson and two of her colleagues have expressed their disquiet at the ambiguity of the annoyance laws, which activists have labelled a "one way street" designed to silence dissent.

NoToPope Coalition members Rachel Evans and Amber Pike took the NSW government to court on Friday, arguing that laws which make it a $5,500 offence to annoy or inconvenience pilgrims should be declared unconstitutional.

Their barrister, John Griffiths SC, said the provisions were excessive and discriminated against protesters.

"This is a provision which is intended to protect, without limit, the sensitivities of the participants in World Youth Day events," Mr Griffiths told the court.

"It is a one-way street of offence.

"There is no comparable or equivalent protection directed the other way ... in relation to the conduct of participants in World Youth Day which may cause annoyance or inconvenience to members of the public."

Justices Branson, Margaret Stone and Robert French grilled NSW Solicitor-General Michael Sexton SC on the breadth and ambiguity of the laws.

"Why should we assume that, absent an express reference in the statute, parliament has intended to prevent people expressing their opinions just because there happens to be participants of World Youth Day in the vicinity?" Justice French asked.

"Tying my shoelace at World Youth Day, is that OK?" added Justice Stone dryly.

Mr Sexton agreed that, read at its most extreme, the law could make shoelace-tying an offence if it annoyed or inconvenienced pilgrims, and said it could have been worse.

"The state parliament has the power to make these kinds of laws if they wanted to," he said.

The judges said the concept of annoyance was subjective, and necessarily encompassed "trivial acts or idiosyncratic reactions".

Justice Branson also questioned whether the provisions banning the sale and distribution of certain items except by authorised merchants essentially amounted to an abuse of state power.

"It's no small thing to use government power to give financial assistance to one party and not another," she observed.

She said she saw nothing in the enabling legislation saying the statutory WYD Authority could use its powers to raise money for itself, "or to give financial benefit to the Catholic church".

There was little guidance about how the WYD Authority could use its power, and no prospect of judicial review, Justice Branson said.

The laws cover WYD-declared areas, transport interchanges and the pilgrimage route, also taking in a radius of 500 metres around the zones.

Under the laws, police, emergency and rural fire service volunteers have the right to move on people deemed to be causing "inconvenience or annoyance" to pilgrims.

They came into force on July 1, and remain in place until July 31st.

The court will deliver its judgment on Tuesday, July 15, the official start of the six-day WYD event.

Viewed 13/07/08 at 14:19

 

[Asguard]

So a federal court JUDGE could be charged for tying her shoelace

Great laws huh

 

[John99]

did you READ bells post?
Did you READ mine?

There are people DYING because of the catholic church in africa, there are same sex couples whos lives are an apsolute missery because of what THIS pope has done and what george Pell has done. Not to mention there stance on abortion and the protests in america BY CATHOLICS outside abortion clinics.

None of this however has anything to do with the fact that as bells has said is 2 people are KISSING IN THERE OWN FRONT YARD and a "pillgram" finds offence then they can be charged for what they are doing IN THERE OWN HOME.

For one thing it is not only religious people who are against abortion. I never took a survey of Atheists or Agnostics on this issue but i bet it would be surprising.

You have to look at the whole issue. Religion tries to guide people but ultimately we make our own choices, our own mistakes. I guess the condom issue came up that people like to blame someone about but they do nothing themselves. The message is abstinence and monogamy, that is first but you dont see that. Obviously people choose not to listen to THAT message because THAT is how aid's is spread. It is a non-=issue anyway because people also choose not to wear condoms anyway. This is different and it is an opinion and people are entitled to it.

I am not saying i am perfect and it is true when i say i am not religious and i am definately not a speaker for organized religions. They dont bother me either though. I think if i had kids i would be religiously inclined but i dont really think about it.

I do have some beliefs but they are variations of other ones, i see no problem with that.

 

[Bells]

For one thing it is not only religious people who are against abortion. I never took a survey of Atheists or Agnostics on this issue but i bet it would be surprising.

You have to look at the whole issue. Religion tries to guide people but ultimately we make our own choices, our own mistakes. I guess the condom issue came up that people like to blame someone about but they do nothing themselves. The message is abstinence and monogamy, that is first but you dont see that. Obviously people choose not to listen to THAT message because THAT is how aid's is spread. It is a non-=issue anyway because people also choose not to wear condoms anyway. This is different and it is an opinion and people are entitled to it.

I am not saying i am perfect and it is true when i say i am not religious and i am definately not a speaker for organized religions. They dont bother me either though. I think if i had kids i would be religiously inclined but i dont really think about it.

I do have some beliefs but they are variations of other ones, i see no problem with that.

Which has what to do with this current discussion?

 

[John99]

Excuse me Bells.

 

[Asguard]

you guys do realise this doesnt discriminated about the kind of protest that takes place?

For instance if the goverment sort to make these laws PERMIDENT no one could protest against them without risking arest.

The same if a group from SA decided that the fact there is no water in the lower lakes because its all locked up in NSW decided to go up there and protest ON THE STEPS OF PARLIMENT they could be arested for THAT even though it has nothing to do with WYD