• Evangelist preaching ban heads to High Court. {Australia}
    28 replies, posted
[quote] [U][B]**SEE VIDEO IN SOURCE**[/B][/U] ------------------------------ [B]Two evangelists have become the unlikely standard bearers for free speech in Australia as they fight a council ban on their preaching.[/B] The brothers' fire and brimstone sermons had become a regular piece of street theatre on Friday evenings in Adelaide's CBD. Brothers Caleb and Samuel Corneloup used the popular shopping precinct of Rundle Mall as a pulpit, preaching their version of the gospel and attracting protests from those opposed to their views. But what started as a passionate public debate over morality has found its way to the High Court, where it could become a judgment on freedom of speech. It was retailers who first called for action against the street preachers, telling the Adelaide City Council that the weekly fracas was turning away shoppers. "We have had complaints, many complaints from traders and from passersby who felt that they had been spoken to in an unreasonable manner," Adelaide City Council's Peter Smith said. The city initially fined the pair and then modified council bylaws to silence them by denying them a permit to preach. The brothers challenged the decision in court, explaining they believe public speaking is the only avenue open to them. "Tolerance for certain things like homosexuality, the cultivating of homosexuality in the schools - it's not just tolerated, it's cultivated," Caleb Corneloup said outside court in August 2010. "So the only thing that we've got, the only chance that we've got is to preach in the streets, because everywhere else we're banned." Their aggressive evangelism continued most notably when they interrupted an anti-homophobia rally. But soon after this clash the brothers had a victory in the Supreme Court when it ruled some of the council bylaw changes were invalid because they prevented free political communication, which is the closest thing Australia has to a constitutional right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech Ralph Bonig, president of the Law Society of South Australia, says freedom of speech is an implied right. "We're looking at, on the one hand, the right to freedom of speech and the ability to express yourself, and the other hand the ability of lawmakers to control in some way where you should be expressing yourself, and maybe what you can and can't say," he said. "When we look at what we can and cannot do as a country, we need from time to time to imply those rights. So freedom of speech is an implied right that has been recognised by the High Court. "And what it means is that we can go about and express ourselves from a political or a religious viewpoint without fear of prosecution or without fear of having it reined in as long as we don't overstep those rules such as defamation and harassment." On Tuesday morning, the South Australian Government appealed to the High Court with the support of the attorneys-general of Queensland, NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and the Commonwealth They believe what is at stake is the ability of a city council to pass laws to regulate its own streets. But others, including Anna Brown from the Human Rights Law Centre, see it differently. "I think it's important to remember that whatever one thinks of the street preachers and their views, it's not those views that are on trial," she said. "The court's been asked to consider not the content of the preachers' views but the question of whether the bylaws, as drafted, limit freedom of speech in a way that breaches the Australian Constitution." The Human Rights Law Centre is making a submission in the case and likens it to the Occupy Melbourne protests that grew violent last year. "They both raise similar and significant issues of human rights protected under the Australian Constitution," Ms Brown said. "The Occupy case and this case both concern protestor rights, but importantly they will have broader implications for the right of all Australians to gather in groups and express their views in public spaces." Caleb and Samuel Corneloup were in court yesterday, but they do not give interviews because they say they have been misquoted too often. ============================== Source: [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-02/evangelists-fight-council-ban-on-preaching/4292164[/url] [/quote] This will be interesting.. I am most certainly in their right to freedom of speech, but Australia doesn't have a bill of rights -- only vague, and malleable laws open to interpretation in our constitution. If they win, I will be happy that common sense prevailed. If they lose, I hope this nudges us into the "Bill of Rights" debate again, maybe even the "Australia as a Republic" debate.
I don't support evangelism or those insane preachers, but it seems ridiculous to ban them. The only reason why is because "they said something that hurt my feelings". If you want to stop that, then you might as well ban all human speech. Also, Australia bans preaching.
Living in Adelaide I see these guys regularly. They're a bunch of cunts. Anyway. We do need a bill of rights in this country. It's retarded we don't have a definitive free speech clause. Apparently the high court says it's "implied' we have freedom of speech
I am not too sure about this. They have said dumb things, but this is a dangerous precedent to set for the future.
If something like this was passed in the USA, it would be grounds for revolt. [sp]Seriously.[/sp] [sp]Granted, there's no way in hell it would happen, though.[/sp]
[QUOTE=download;37891322]Living in Adelaide I see these guys regularly. They're a bunch of cunts. Anyway. We do need a bill of rights in this country. It's retarded we don't have a definitive free speech clause. Apparently the high court says it's "implied' we have freedom of speech[/QUOTE] I hardly think a bill of rights would protect our freedoms anymore than the Australia Constitution already does. I personally think it's actually a good balance. And these guys aren't defending "FREEDOM OF SPEECH", they're just harrassing local businesses and people that don't want anything to do with their religious views. People need to stop using the [b]slippery slope[/b] argument to claim that banning these guys will possibly lead to our right to freedom of speech being impaired.
[QUOTE=MuTAnT;37892045]I hardly think a bill of rights would protect our freedoms anymore than the Australia Constitution already does. I personally think it's actually a good balance. And these guys aren't defending "FREEDOM OF SPEECH", they're just harrassing local businesses and people that don't want anything to do with their religious views. People need to stop using the [b]slippery slope[/b] argument to claim that banning these guys will possibly lead to our right to freedom of speech being impaired.[/QUOTE] They're not going into shops and doing this, they're doing it in the street. You can keep on walking past them if you want. Personally I chose to stay and tell them they're fucking morons Enjoy your box collection
Well that's exactly what I'm saying, you shouldn't need to stop and tell them they're fucking morons. There's nothing wrong with police/local council moving them on. Freedom of speech doesn't imply you can hang around and shout messages of intolerance to others.
Uh, yes it is. So then. Who's going to be the decided as to what they can and can't say? huh?
[QUOTE=download;37892324]Uh, yes it is. So then. Who's going to be the decided as to what they can and can't say? huh?[/QUOTE] Look I see where you're coming from but it's really not as difficult as you're making it out to be. Well if the High Court rules in favor of the Local Council, I imagine the local community will decide. Police already have the power to move people on, I don't see how these two guys complaining about freedom of speech is any fucking different. Apparently it's ok to shout whatever in a public place as long as you have a political or religious motive.
You didn't answer my question. You glossed over it will bullshit
Australia banning preaching is no better than muslim nations banning blasphemy. Any step against freedom of speech is detrimental, in my opinion. Im sure there is another solution to this problem, but outright banning a first-world norm will come back and bite australia in the ass in the future.
Freedom is overrated. No I don't fucking care about your fucking Benjamin Franklin quotes, go away. [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] Also freedom of speech is not a first-world norm, it's only been codified in the U.S. [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] actually disregard I suck cocks
Yeah alright touché, I did. I do mean that local communities, (Council or Police) would probably decide this sort of thing. I'm honestly not sure, that or Magistrate's. This is the first case I've seen go to the High Court. You're right that we don't actually have the right to Freedom of Speech but even in the US it's generally understood to be conditional, not just black and white. You have the right to express your views in any way [b]as long[/b] as you don't infringe on the rights or reputations of others. In the article it says passersby claimed they were spoken to in, "an unreasonable manner". I have no idea what that means but I guess I'm saying if that if what they were saying infringed on the rights/reputations of them then yes they don't have the right to say those things.
They're not forcing anyone and they're not infringing on anyone's rights
[QUOTE=1239the;37892635]Freedom is overrated. No I don't fucking care about your fucking Benjamin Franklin quotes, go away. [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] Also freedom of speech is not a first-world norm, it's only been codified in the U.S. [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] actually disregard I suck cocks[/QUOTE] Youre quite the indecisive one, arent you. And im sure you'll appreciate freedom once its taken away from you. The idea of having freedom to your opinion is, and should, be considered a first world norm, seeing as how in some 3rd world nations you could legally be jailed or executed for your opinion. If you find your very freedom to express yourself "overrated", then you should spend some time in egypt or the middle east in general. Im sure you'll enjoy the censorship and government regulation over your very words. Just because 2 religious jackoffs are pissing off people doesnt mean the law should be changed on whim. This isnt "benjamin Franklin" quotes, its an opinion formed from "logic".
[QUOTE=bob4life;37892736]Youre quite the indecisive one, arent you. And im sure you'll appreciate freedom once its taken away from you. The idea of having freedom to your opinion is, and should, be considered a first world norm, seeing as how in some 3rd world nations you could legally be jailed or executed for your opinion. If you find your very freedom to express yourself "overrated", then you should spend some time in egypt or the middle east in general. Im sure you'll enjoy the censorship and government regulation over your very words. Just because 2 religious jackoffs are pissing off people doesnt mean the law should be changed on whim. This isnt "benjamin Franklin" quotes, its an opinion formed from "logic".[/QUOTE] Nice to see that you're leaping to the defense of your beliefs against a straw man. Stay strong there buddy.
[QUOTE=download;37892589]You didn't answer my question. You glossed over it will bullshit[/QUOTE] He answered your question. He said the local community will decide the standards and that it would come under the jurisdiction of local councils. Stop being antagonistic.
Wow, i didnt think it possible, but you managed to add less than nothing to this conversation. Stating situations of Legal persecution for speech isnt using the "straw man" fallacy, its the entire point of the article. You know, the one about the preachers being possibly banned under australian law? The one you've been commenting in? Something to do with legally enforcing a ban. Just because you heard someone use a word once doesnt mean you know what youre doing. Accusing someone of using fallacies should be used to prevent future fallacies, not as some kind of "UMAD?" For trolls who want to sound smart. And you arent even using it straw man right. Tell me, was it hard to condense that much stupid into so few words?
I think the ideal solution here is to see whether they've broken laws involving harassment, noise restrictions, public proselytising, defamation. Also, there are laws that don't allow you to preach/promote political parties within x distance of a school, so I don't see why it's unreasonable that they move other loud promoters away from places of business, parks, schools etc.
Why cant they simply be polite about their hateful views on homosexuality? Just appoint a time when you are going to be preaching, anyone who wants to can come, maybe put it in a building or something You could do it once a week and make it a community event, wait... that's just church... why aren't they preaching in churches?
Oh, I saw these wankers the other day when I was in Rundle Mall. It's nice to get rid of them, but it's still a breach of free speech.
They harass everyone who walks past them and spread bullshit on public property. Good riddance i say.
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out, I think they should be fucked off simply because I feel bad for the shop owners losing lots of business because of it. Surely there are laws against public disturbance/nuisance that this could come under as well.
[QUOTE=znk666;37895029]They harass everyone who walks past them and spread bullshit on public property. Good riddance i say.[/QUOTE] if it's public property, why can we now selectively ban certain people from speaking as if it were private property? if they're not infringing on anyone else's rights they can speak as much as they want, bullshit or not. if you really cannot abide them, just tell them that they're all morons. you're both allowed to insult each other as much as you want, there isn't any discrimination based on beliefs alone and there never should be.
This doesn't seem to be about freedom of speech. It seems to be more about disturbing the peace, which they were doing.
[QUOTE=Cone;37898081]if it's public property, why can we now selectively ban certain people from speaking as if it were private property? if they're not infringing on anyone else's rights they can speak as much as they want, bullshit or not. if you really cannot abide them, just tell them that they're all morons. you're both allowed to insult each other as much as you want, there isn't any discrimination based on beliefs alone and there never should be.[/QUOTE] I agree, rather than turn this into a huge debate and controversy, tell them you disagree or tell them to go fuck themselves, it's kind of a level playing field. [editline]3rd October 2012[/editline] They're like a cuddly version of the Westboro Baptist Church. I just want to hug them.
[QUOTE=Mlisen14;37893173]I think the ideal solution here is to see whether they've broken laws involving harassment, noise restrictions, public proselytising, defamation. Also, there are laws that don't allow you to preach/promote political parties within x distance of a school, so I don't see why it's unreasonable that they move other loud promoters away from places of business, parks, schools etc.[/QUOTE] How is offering you a leaflet harassment? Unless they follow you down the road trying to force it on you I don't see how it's even close.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;37898464]How is offering you a leaflet harassment? Unless they follow you down the road trying to force it on you I don't see how it's even close.[/QUOTE] Well from the tone of the article (and if they're like any of Melbourne's evangelist preachers) it sounds as if they're preaching intolerance of gays with a lot of vitriol day in, day out. That's harassment of people who work on the mall.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.