Continued from previous post.
Morality is NOT the basis for Australian law. How can I prove this? Easily. The basis for our laws would affect all areas of the law. What is the moral basis of corporate law, administrative law, tax law or constitutional law? Obviously none. They are based on reason. But if there are areas of the law NOT based on morality then morality cannot be the basis of our laws.

Another point to consider. Australian society possesses two types of morality. Societal morality which has influenced some of our laws. And Christian morality. They are not the same. Want proof? Consider this. If Australian society's morality & christian morality were the same then abortion would still be illegal. Virtually every christian denomination condemns abortion as being against the will of God. Yet the majority of Australians hold to the view that abortion should be kept legal. The majority of Australians also have no problem with premarital sex despite the fact that the majority of Christian denominations [both Catholic & protestant oppose it] The two moralities are obviously in conflict & therefore cannot be the same. It follows from this then that society's morality & NOT christian morality has influenced our laws.

As we have seen our laws come from Common law & have been influenced by both Roman law & societal morality. What happens if they conflict? How can we choose between them? Easily. Jurisprudence. i.e Reason applied to the law.

But you ask why can't we base our laws on Christian morality? But which morality is that? Some Christian sects hold that dancing is evil. Others that drinking or smoking is wrong. Virtually all of them condemn premarital sex & abortion. Want to bring in any of these intrusive laws do you? Which christian denomination got it right & how do we decide? There are good reasons why our society is secular. And since our society is secular then any basis for our laws MUST support that secularity. Reason & reason alone does this. Why? Because reason plays no favourites.

I have just read in my local rag another case of the law being an ass, mainly due to the people who make the laws, whilst well intentioned and playing to the masses, have not a clue or ability to reason.

This week a British man was arrested by police on Bondi Beach, charged and fined $500 for taking photographs in a public place.

Yes, a public place.

There was no risk of the photographs being taken for potential terrorist use. Neither were the people being photographed doing anything in public that they minded people knowing about, otherwise they would not have been acting that way in public.

This man was arrested, charged and fined $500 for taking photographs of women who were topless on Bondi Beach. There is no question that the women were topless in a public place by choice, they were not coherced. There was no question that these women did not choose to uncover their breasts in a public manner. It does not matter that some in the community would find the display of breasts on a public beach to be offensive.

He was charged and found guilty of acting in an offensive manner in a public place.

It absolutely seems now that there is an assumption of privacy in a public place.

So, a warning - don't take photos of people in public, whether on a beach or anywhere else.

Don't assume that ypu can take photos of a crowd of people, because in that crowd in a public place there may be a woman wearing a short skirt or shorts who does not want her photo taken.

So: Why don't the police simply arrest and charge anyone in public who has a camera ready for use?

Charge them with the intention of acting in an offensive manner...

Apparently it wasn't his taking the photographs that was the problem, it was his associated leering behaviour. If he'd simply taken the photos there would have been no problem. When was the last time a newsmedia photographer was arrested for photographing topless women on a city beach?

There is no expectation of privacy in a public place in Australia. But everyone should expect not to be subjected to offensive behaviour. This isn't about morality, it's purely practical. Who would want to live in a society where a creep could go around perving in a woman's face and ogling her breasts simply because she was sunbathing on a beach?

The author and Bosk make a common mistake. They insinuate and confound the semantics of the relatively modern and derivative term 'moral' in the place of the less derivative and more technical term 'more' (moray).

The law, at least since Hammurabi, has been based on a codification of the norms and 'mores' of a particular society. This is the semantic root, linguistically and historically, of 'moral'. Hence, semantically at least, the law is, by virtue of codification of 'mores', based on morality. But then, lawyers make a living out of obfuscating, circumventing, and corrupting common language - why would we expect semantic accuracy from them, it is not in their interests. And why would we accept their semantically inaccurate arguments, it is not in our interests.

odsoc

Osdoc
I'm afraid it's you who've m,ade the mistake. Quote "The law, at least since Hammurabi, has been based on a codification of the norms and 'mores' of a particular society."

Two points:
1) This statement is merely an assertion. Evidence please.

2) Any claimed basis for the law must have influenced all areas of the law not just some. What mores were the influence behind corporate law, administrative law, tax law and constitutional law? None! But that means these areas of the law were uninfluenced by the mores of society. Therefore there are some areas of the law uninfluenced by the mores of society & therefore the mores of society cannot be the basis of the law, since the basis of law MUST have influenced ALL areas of law. QED.

Peter P wrote:

Apparently it wasn't his taking the photographs that was the problem, it was his associated leering behaviour. If he'd simply taken the photos there would have been no problem. When was the last time a newsmedia photographer was arrested for photographing topless women on a city beach?

There is no expectation of privacy in a public place in Australia. But everyone should expect not to be subjected to offensive behaviour. This isn't about morality, it's purely practical. Who would want to live in a society where a creep could go around perving in a woman's face and ogling her breasts simply because she was sunbathing on a beach?

----

If he had been taking the photos with a telephone lens, so that he wasn't in the woman's face he would still have been just as 'guilty' under the Act.

As I said, maybe we should just ban ALL photography in public places: and there has been debate even in OLO re this:

see

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3649

Critics of the council proposals to ban photography pointed out what should be a self-evident fact - that, rightly or wrongly, topless women in public places should anticipate being ogled, and that if they do not like it they have the choice of covering up or staying at home. A voyeuristic reaction from people sharing a public place - including those who wish to remember the scene through making a photographic image of it - should be anticipated by the scantly-clad.

Others came to the defence of the women, saying that photographers invade their right to privacy. But, hold on - what right to privacy is this? Surely it must be conceded that appearing in a public place cancels any assumed right to privacy. How can one be private and public at the same time?

----

so, should people have the right to privacy in a public place or not?