“Causing annoyance is absolutely ridiculous as it is far too open to abuse by those who can claim annoyance”

Agreed mjpb. This is surely the core of the issue. Laws need to be as tightly defined as possible so that we all know where we stand with the law, to the best possible extent. We must NOT accept fuzzy legal concepts such as ‘annoyance’.

Ill-defined legal parameters lead to uneven policing, with some people getting away with much worse things than others get hauled up for…….or at least the perception of that being the case. It leads to some police wielding a tight fist while others take a very liberal view…or of the perception of this occurring. It leaves the door open for police to be strongly discriminatory and pick out only certain groups or people for harsh treatment, based on their age, sex, skin colour and not on their actions……or again, the perception of this occurring.

I don’t have a problem with strong law enforcement, just as long as we all know just what activities will cause such action to be rendered.

In short, a strong policing regime is GOOD! But it has GOT to go hand in hand with a very tightly defined set of parameters for both the public and for the police, and a maximised publicity program to go with it, so that everyone knows where they stand with the law…..and no one gets caught up in heavy police action, fines, arrests, assault, etc for undertaking activities that they believed were lawful.

mjpb, that most recent post was an attempt to get those who seem to be seeing the issue in black and white terms to have a nother think. I'm concerned about "open" laws and the potential for abuse but I can also see that very specific laws are often easily circumvented.

I don't like restrictions on free speech or protest neither do I like abuse of free speech or protest that infringes on others rights to enjoy something that they may be very important to them.

An athiest hassling attendees at a major christian event is just as offensive as a fundamentalist hassling participants in the gay and lesbian mardi gras. Silencing negative comment about either is also dangerous. There are no easy answers, government abuses power and individuals abuse freedom. Personally I'd rather risk the abuse of freedom than the abuse of government power.

R0bert

Hahaha

'protect me, but don't annoy me while you're doing it'.

Ludwig said:

"Laws need to be as tightly defined as possible so that we all know where we stand with the law, to the best possible extent. We must NOT accept fuzzy legal concepts such as ‘annoyance’."

Annoyance is doing something that's annoying, disruptive or inciting others to annoy. It's vague because 'annoyance' comes in many shades. By the time you and your mates got together and defined what annoying actually was the festival would be over.

Most you people seem to think coppers are all storm troopers from the reich. I bet about 1% of you guys have had a negative experience with them. Excluding being of the receiving end because of your stupidity. They would like to have a cruisy day at some festival just like everyone else, but history dictates that wouldn't happen. There's always the few that ruin it for everyone by being idiots. The cops are damned if they do, and worse, damned if they don't.

You've also got to consider what sort of people would turn up to a youth festival. You're kidding yourself in your well established fantasy worlds if you think people with insidious intentions don't rock up to these things.

You sit there and vilify them, but who do you call when you need help?.

I agree with “Anna Katzmann, SC, described the regulations as "unnecessary and repugnant"."

I personally have no desire to challenge the RC right to hold a rally and for people to freely enjoy the community of spirit with their fellow Rc’s

Same goes to CofE, Exclusive Brethren, Muslims and every other religion.

However, I believe the strength of a religion or any other belief or ethicacy system is its ability to stand up to being tested.

That means facing those who do challenge its values, especially when the Church of Rome is so adamant at imposing its values, wholesale, on non-Roman Catholics. Examples - its drive for a non-contraception and non-abortion environment, as the only way.

Other doubts I have with the RC is the ability for the Church of Rome to adopt crass hypocrisy regarding the celibacy of the priesthood, especially when that means it covers up the endemic abuse of children by its less-than-celibate priests.

So should we kow-tow to a corrupt and malignant organisation or should we challenge its hypocrisy face on?

It seems to me, in NSW, at least, that choice, regardless of the feelings of the electorate, is being denied the citizenry of this secular land.

Another reason Im not happy with World Youth Week it is that the Pope is coming all this way out to Australia as part of a recruitment drive for the One World Church the Vatican is building.
He's not after converts to Jesus Christ but converts to the RC religion... and we are paying for it.
The last two Popes have spend a great deal of time wooing other religions and cultural groups to get them to connected with the RC system.
The recruits are for the great endtimes giant church that combines with the last great dictator in Europe to rule the northern part of the world. Check out The False Prophet.
I believe that Europe is going to soon fall into another dark age with the persecution of true christian believers at the hands of Rome (again an Inquistion).
Jewish folk might be wise to leave before the next Adolf Hitler rises to power.
Between him and the False Prophet... theres not going to be much safety in Europe.

"Personally I'd rather risk the abuse of freedom than the abuse of government power."

That makes sense. Governments abusing their power have so often been such as an ugly and powerful thing. Problem individuals usually do less damage. The "ever-increasing erosion of civil liberties that appears to be the hallmark of 21st century life" almost invites governments to abuse their power. There always seems some 'reason' often a 'crisis' that is used to explain increasing erosion.