WYD: can now "annoy" but cannot "inconvenience"

Glad I didn't get round to buying the t-shirt now, since it seems it won't be necessary. Amber Pike and Rachel Evans of the NoToPope coalition have successfully overturned the "annoyance" part of the WYD regulations in court: Court backs WYD activists' right to annoy.

Premier Iemma's spin in the linked article is entertaining: he's emphasising the fact that the regulations' prohibition on "inconveniencing" was upheld, and trying to make out that this means his government still got everything it wanted:

Premier Morris Iemma says the Government will not be appealing against the court's decision. He says police still have adequate powers.

"Two words have been struck out - the words 'and annoyance'," he said.

"'Inconvenience' is still there and they can still achieve the same objective, and that is to ensure that people who do want to make a point in a protest can do so without disrupting the pilgrims or the events.

Did Mr Iemma just admit that his government's attempt to crack down on "annoying" behaviour during World youth Day wasn't actually necessary for the maintenance of order? Then why did your government try and crack down on it, mate?

"Pilgrims" in Sydney

What a strange feeling it is to say that Sydney, this not particularly religious city, is currently attracting "pilgrims". I'm still putting the word in inverted commas while I get used to the idea.

I passed some of them wearing World Youth Day passes, talking in a language that I think was French, as I was walking to work today. My workplace isn't exactly dead centre of Sydney either. They ignored me, which pretty much sums up the entire WYD experience for those of us who actually live here - we're completely irrelevant to the proceedings.

The insularity appears to be bad news economically: an article in the Sydney Morning Herald claims that the pilgrims (there, I'm getting used to it) are causing a downturn in business in the city, as regular patrons flee from the proceedings and the pilgrims are simply not interested in anything not specifically WYD-related.

And I can't resist posting this bit from the article above, which is quite revealing about the mindset of all these pilgrims here who claim to follow a Saviour whose teachings placed so much emphasis on helping the poor:

A local Big Issue vendor said he was also having one of his worst days in memory.

Trevor sells the magazine, which benefits the homeless and long-term unemployed, on the corner of Elizabeth and Market street every day, but said today was barely worth the trouble.

"It was dead this morning," he said.

"On a good day I'd make between $100 and $150 ... today I reckon I'll take about $25."

The young vendor said all the office workers seemed to have disappeared from the CBD, and that the pilgrims were not interested in buying the magazine.

"They only stop and ask for directions to the church," he said.

World Youth Day Regulations are kind of but not really like regulations at sporting events

One of the justifications given by defenders of the World Youth Day regulations - for example by Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione towards the end of this news article - is that they're "no different to those used at sports stadiums and other large public arenas". I don't think many people are familiar with the regulations at sports stadiums. I wondered if this was actually true.

Sporting venues in New South Wales are governed by acts and legislation describing what actions can and can't be performed by the authority in charge of maintaining that venue (usually a private or state-run corporation that's given permission to manage the land). For example, Sydney Olympic Park would be governed by a regulation like, say the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Regulation 2007 - REG 17:

(1) A person who contravenes any provision of this Regulation while at a sportsground, or who trespasses or causes annoyance or inconvenience [emphasis added] on any part of a sportsground, may be removed from the sportsground or the relevant part of the sportsground by a person authorised by the Authority or a police officer.

(2) A person authorised by the Authority or a police officer acting in accordance with this clause may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of discharging his or her functions under this clause.

So people are actually telling the truth that restrictions on "annoying and inconveniencing" people have already existed in some type of NSW legislation. But calling the WYD regulations "no different" from something like what goes on at sporting events is really stretching it.

First, sporting venue regulations apply only to sporting venues. This seems fair to me: a person is paying money to enter that space, and should reasonably expect to find their behaviour restricted should they choose to pay for permission to access it. World Youth Day regulations prohibiting "annoyance" and "inconvenience", while they do not apply to the whole city, apply to some pretty important public parts of it. Issue 75 of the Government Gazette of the State of NSW has the complete list starting on page 5822. It includes the Domain, The University of Sydney, Hyde Park, The Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Sydney Jewish Museum (wtf?), the list goes on. The worst part, and a part which NEVER applies to my knowledge during, say, State of Origin matches, is that the regulations governing the event also apply to transport sites: all the inner city railway stations, Liverpool and Campbelltown stations for crying out loud, as well as various other stations and bus interchanges. This is hardly "no different" from what happens during major sporting events. It's unprecedented.

Also unprecedented is the existence of a $5500 fine rather than merely, as the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Regulation above says, removal from the grounds. Looking at the Government Gazette's reprinting of the regulations, a fine would be incurred for disobeying an instruction to cease engaging in "annoying or inconveniencing" activity rather than for the activity itself. This is less problematic than it could be. But even so, giving civil authorities this much arbitrary power to censor public speech is still asking for trouble. I'm very glad that the State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service have indicated that they're going to refuse to use these powers.

I actually feel slightly less concerned about the regulations now I've had an opportunity to study them thoroughly, but I still view them as an unwarranted attack on the public expression of freedom of speech. Describing them as similar to those regulations that are in place at sporting venues is misleading in my opinion, as they go quite a bit further than anything that's ever been in place before.

Who asked for the WYD laws? And are they really about "protecting merchandising revenue"?

There seems to be some confusion in the Australian media about it. WYD organisers 'didn't ask for rules' is the headline in the Age, although the article quotes Premier Iemma as saying that the laws "were brought in following consultation with the church and advice from the World Youth Day authority". A headline in The Australian points the finger at the Catholic Church: Church's power request.

The Australian understands the Government acted after a meeting of the Local Organising Committee of the Catholic Church on May 23. The committee, chaired by Cardinal George Pell, was concerned not only with quarantining protesters but also with protecting revenues from merchandise sales and advertising.

Protecting merchandising revenue? Really teaching us what's important to the Christian faith there, Cardinal.

So who actually wanted the laws brought in?

Anti-WYD/Pro free speech t-shirts - what would I like?

Are there protest T-shirts for WYD available that protest the anti-annoyance laws without gratuitously attacking Catholics themselves? I don't actually have a beef with the followers - they didn't ask for these regulations as far as I know.

Let's see...this one isn't too bad: "free speech*" with "*$5500 may apply" just under it. This one is interesting: "WYD 08: Is this really what Jesus would do?", but doesn't address my main concern about the whole suppression of freedom of speech thing. Here's one that's apparently pretty popular: "$5500: a small price to pay for annoying Catholics". Okay I guess, but I don't have a beef with the followers.

And there's the dilemma: I want to protest these regulations by being annoying, but I don't actually see the point in annoying Catholics. It won't change their mind. They're not going to suddenly up and say "oh gosh I've been wrong all this time!" based on anything I can do or say. It just, well, annoys them.

The boyfriend is kind of irritated about the whole thing as well. He was considering going in to protest before he learned that the Sydney protests were being organised by people with whom he has strong ideological disagreements. Maybe we should do something together? There's a kiss-in being organised...

Maybe this one is the best option: "WYD has annoyed and inconvenienced me. Pay ME $5500".

Idiotic World Youth Day regulations

Five and a half thousand dollar fine if you "cause annoyance" during World Youth Day.

You know, I didn't actually feel motivated to be annoying during World Youth Day until I heard about this.

Maybe I should see if I get myself one of those annoying T-shirts that they're talking about?.