Thou shalt not annoy on Youth Day

Welcome to the US indeed, Asguard.
Granted, protesters are annoying,
But, if you believe what you believe, then you have to suffer criticism of that belief, and of that of your associated believers.
Guilt by association isn't right, but it happens, and it is a part of life. We've tried to prevent it, but this law is clearly not helping. After all, if one group of protesters acted violently at some random funeral, it means that all will act violently right ? this is what this law, and the APEC laws are in effect saying.

So.
If one priest abuses a child, they must all abuse children right ?.
 
Challenger78 said:
So.
If one priest abuses a child, they must all abuse children right ?.
Click to expand...
This didn't seem to fit with the rest of the post. I have never heard of anyone who asserted that all priests abuse children. In fact the main anger I have heard was not at priests per se, but rather at a system that kept children in jeopardy and put PR and saving face ahead of children not CONTINUING to get abused. A systematic lack of responsible response by the church which was immoral to an extreme degree, especially when the church is putting itself out as THE place to learn about being good, moral and holy.

Of course, perhaps you were being ironic in some way I didn't quite get.
 
he was being sarcastic, people here have said that all protesters are vilont so he fliped it on the church and said "if some protesters being vilont= ALL protesters being vilont" then using the same logic, "some priests being pedifile = ALL priests being pedifiles"
 
Court rejects WYD annoyance laws

ABC News
Posted 20 minutes ago
Updated 18 minutes ago

Two student activists have won a court challenge to special World Youth Day laws that allowed police to detain people or fine them $5,500 for annoying or inconveniencing Catholic pilgrims.

No To Pope Coalition members Amber Pike and Rachel Evans took the New South Wales Government to the Federal Court, arguing the laws were unconstitutional because they would make their peaceful protest illegal.

The Government passed the rules two weeks ago without discussion or debate.

The court ruled the definitions of 'annoyance' and 'inconvenience' were too broad and the scope of the laws was uncertain.

It found that in giving the World Youth Day Coordination Authority the power to set the regulations, the Government would not have intended to infringe on freedom of speech.

The court said the law was intended to encourage policing and public safety but could be misused to infringe on people's rights.

However, the court dismissed the second part of the university students' challenge, upholding the section of the regulations that said prescribed items could not be distributed.

It said banning the unauthorised sale of certain items, including stickers, badges and T-shirts, was not unconstitutional and did not stop free political communication.

The judges said the No To Pope Coalition would not be prohibited from handing out condoms and leaflets under the laws.


Viewed 15/07/08 at 13:08
Click to expand...

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you federal court:D
political speach (as well as the freedom of the people of sydney) is restored
 
Hey listen, i am just being honest. I know a lot about psychology and i wanted to be sure we are on the same page. Is there anything i wrote that you do not agree with?
 
yes, the fact that again HIS POST WAS SARCASTIC.

See if your "intelligent" enough to follow this

Person A says "because SOME protesters are vilont means ALL protesters are vilont"

Person B says "using that logic if ONE priest is a pediphile then ALL priests are pediphiles"

Is that in symple enough language for you to get through your thick SKULL!!!

Nither of us was suggesting that all priests are pediphiles, we were commenting on how rediculas the comment that all protesters are vilont was
 
You know what? You have a lot to learn. Spend your entire life fighting an invisible enemy but you will never be happy.
 
Thanks for the update asguard. Good to know some people still know what equality means.

For once, I'm happy for the supreme court.
Out of curiosity, who proposed these laws ?
And is the supreme court appointed by the government ?
 
Simon Anders said:
This didn't seem to fit with the rest of the post. I have never heard of anyone who asserted that all priests abuse children. In fact the main anger I have heard was not at priests per se, but rather at a system that kept children in jeopardy and put PR and saving face ahead of children not CONTINUING to get abused. A systematic lack of responsible response by the church which was immoral to an extreme degree, especially when the church is putting itself out as THE place to learn about being good, moral and holy.

Of course, perhaps you were being ironic in some way I didn't quite get.
Click to expand...

I was making a sarcastic point. Yes.
But I see yours nonetheless.
 
Asguard said:
he was being sarcastic, people here have said that all protesters are vilont so he fliped it on the church and said "if some protesters being vilont= ALL protesters being vilont" then using the same logic, "some priests being pedifile = ALL priests being pedifiles"
Click to expand...
Okey dokey
 
Klansman justify what they do too. i can go on and on but its not my problem. I dont think we have this problem in the U.S. though. At least not since the sixties and the civil rights movement. We do have Fred Phelps but even they seem harmless. I have to say that right now it seems like the U.S is more advanced in this regard.

Let me check out that other post from last night, that was the result of three or four Gin and tonics.:shrug:
 
Well...as annoying as it is...as a Catholic I still believe they have the right to protest. Either it's a right or it isn't, period, and I may not like what they have to say, and some of their criticisms would be irksome on a day about celebration, but that doesn't mean they're wrong in those criticisms. Catholicism isn't exactly holding a "Criticism and Dejected Shame Day", so World Youth Day is an appropriate venue.

Free speech.
 
Well i dont mess with innocent people. Gay parades or similar? No. I have had issues with the lifestyle that took me awhile to understand but i never harassed them and i realized it was wrong so i changed. Lesbians gathering for an event? I wouldn't protest them either because i just see it as a sign of ignorance to give people a hard time.

Muslims? There is no way these people would harass a large group of Muslims gathering peacefully. Jews? No.

Whats next Chinese people? Lets all go down to the cub scout festival and act like idiots.
 
Hmm. Hmm. Depends though on whether anything they're doing is societally worthy of criticism.
 
I think i made myself clear on this. I dont care about the politics involved, people gathering peacefully should not be harassed. What is so hard to understand? I feel the same weather we are talking about Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses...who cares?

If you dont agree with Catholicism then become Jewish. To be honest i thought you were anyway.

Are you sure?:D
 
Last edited:
challager actually it wasnt the supreem court, it was the federal courts that struck it down.

To be honest i was a little worried this would go all the way to the high court but cheerfully it didnt

Im sill waiting for the judgement to go up on AustLII so that i can link it here, it SHOULD go up today i think because there is a judgement from the 14th that was on there yesterday, if it does i will post it here
 
John99 said:
I think i made myself clear on this. I dont care about the politics involved, people gathering peacefully should not be harassed. What is so hard to understand? I feel the same weather we are talking about Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses...who cares?

If you dont agree with Catholicism then become Jewish. To be honest i thought you were anyway.

Are you sure?:D
Click to expand...
Ethically I tend to agree with you, with exceptions for groups that are by definition heinous such as the KKK. But that is ethics.

I want the law to not take away that freedom.
 
But you cannot take away peoples freedoms to gather peacefully and not be harassed. That is Nazism. it is just that simple. Mob rules, you may as well get out the SS uniform.

So what do we have now?

do you harass black people on a day they dedicate to themselves? We have a whole month in U.S dealing with black history.

do you harass peurto ricans on peurto rican day because peurto rico did something you do not agree with.

do you harass Muslims on a day that they designate to be proud of their heritage?

do you harass Jewish people gathering with their families?

Well we know these people probably do not have the balls to do that so what does that say about them?

How about Atheists?

This is not a society i would want to live in and i will fight for peoples freedoms because i will fight for my own.

Politics and disagreements politically are one thing. We come here and discuss these things all the time. Often times we do it with incredible bias but this, to a certain extent, is to be expected. Another thing that is particularly frightening is when you have people who may be emotionally charged or perhaps even disturbed dictating who can live the way they want to.

I don't know if you are American or not but in the U.S we learned about this decades ago. We may have learned the hard way but i think it penetrated.
 
Last edited:
John99 said:
But you cannot take away peoples freedoms to gather peacefully and not be harassed. That is Nazism. it is just that simple. Mob rules, you may as well get out the SS uniform.
Click to expand...
No. This is simply not the case. All the while I was growing up people had the right to wear anti-______t-shirts, even verbally call out protesting remarks in all sorts of contexts. Even carry signs. This happened with Baptists outside planned parenthood, and anti-Klan protesters and Catholics outside the last temptation of christ and, well I could go on and make an enormous list inclusing more examples of people I agree with and disagree with. At no point did anyone throw any Jews to the ground or load them on trains. This would have been illegal.

do you harass black people on a day they dedicate to themselves? We have a whole month in U.S dealing with black history.

do you harass peurto ricans on peurto rican day because peurto rico did something you do not agree with.

do you harass Muslims on a day that they designate to be proud of their heritage?

do you harass Jewish people gathering with their families?

Well we know these people probably do not have the balls to do that so what does that say about them?

How about Atheists?
Click to expand...

I can't see any examples here where I personally would protest. If however someone wanted to protest a large gathering - not like a family picnic, for example - I want them to have the right to do that.

I don't know if you are American or not but in the U.S we learned about this decades ago.
Click to expand...
It is precisely in the US that I have seen a rather large number of protests. I think it is one of the strengths of the system. That people can nonviolently protest.

Your examples are not parallels. World Youth Day was created by the Pope and the Vatican. It is a promotional project for the church. It is not the equivalent of a gathering of the Levine family or the Ali family in Central Park. This is a large event created by an organization that has to face the fact that it faces criticism in the world. And the individuals going to this event need to accept, in democracies with freedom of speech and assembly, that they will hear criticism of their organization, on occasion at events like this.

If there was an event put on by a specific jewish organization that had critics than this too would potentially face protests. So it should be. The same with the other groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top