Oh dear lord, Westboro have spawned in Adelaide...

[fireheart17]

This case has the potential to make "freedom of speech" a proper, documented right. It goes beyond the petty street preaching that spawned it.

Of course, if the court finds in their favour, there's nothing stopping anyone from putting a soapbox next to an obnoxious street preacher and loudly pointing out all their distortions, hypocrisy and idiocy.

I'm just more amazed that it made it that far. And for that matter, how the idiots managed to find the money to go to the high court.

For the record, they are self-represented.

Oh and don't worry, there are plenty of people who plan on doing that.
(not me) The protest group that started up originally are going to most likely start protesting again if they win. And now the police can't do a damn thing about it except sit back and munch on popcorn as two groups collide.

ETA: Here's one of the documents about their case, which sums it up better in legalese: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/case...AGSA_Reply.pdf

[Nyoibo]

It should be interesting to see the ramifications of the ruling, the Cornloupes haven't really thought it through though.

[fireheart17]

It should be interesting to see the ramifications of the ruling, the Cornloupes haven't really thought it through though.

*points to post above explaining said ramifications*

[Nyoibo]

I meant in terms of how it may be formalized, freedom of religious expression, political expression or if it will be freedom of speech in general, also wether what they preach can be construed as hate speech and still stopped

[fireheart17]

I meant in terms of how it may be formalized, freedom of religious expression, political expression or if it will be freedom of speech in general, also wether what they preach can be construed as hate speech and still stopped

Let's see....breaking all of those down:

Religious expression: I suspect that it will fall under religious freedom. I do believe there's already a section in the constitution which protects it. The problem is that it doesn't clearly define WHICH religions are OK.

Political expression: religion and politics don't mix, the church are not a political party (and do not have enough members to form one) and all of their protests have been under the guise of "prayer meetings".

Hate speech: This will most likely fall under hate speech.

What I suspect this means if it gets overhauled, is that those who want to protest on the steps of Parliament House about logging rights will be allowed to do so without having to inform the government about it (which is done for possibly safety reasons, but I'm not 100% sure). It'll also mean that the idiots who protest outside our one abortion clinic in the state will still be allowed to protest, but from what I've heard, they're usually a small group of about a dozen people, and they don't get overly violent. (theirs IS political)


This is the group's website in case anyone was wondering: http://www.churchadelaide.com/

The ONLY thing I agree on with them is that there are a couple of denominations that appear to have formed out of greed, but attacking the Catholic Church and the Uniting Church are big fat no-nos (especially because I know that the latter does not ask for tithing or do collection plates at church, not so sure about the others. I'm thinking more of the "megachurch" type groups)

Although there are two passages that are screaming "cult" to me, if anything:

We believe that a true believer must fellowship regularly with the Christian Church. The true believer should not engage in “brotherly fellowship” within churches that have been overcome by a false gospel, a lack of teaching on biblical assurance of Salvation and have been given over to a spirit of covetousness (greed).

We believe in church discipline and that those who profess Christ but continually refuse to acknowledge and repent of their sin must cast out of the church. The Church is made up of people who are following after God and are striving for holiness through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

I can easily see these two passages as being cult-like. The first passage makes me think that they are being isolated from others and encouraging others to cut off relationships. The latter seems to be more cult-like since if you don't follow their rules, buh-bye. ANd of course, since women are "sinful" creatures, they are screwed.

I wonder if I can twist their words around like this.

(watch the end of the clip)

[fireheart17]

And I have yet another update:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226586588243

Ignore the link, they have effectively been banned from Rundle Mall.

ETA: OK, a bit more clarification now that I've had some time to read and fully digest it.

Long story short, the Adelaide City Council (council districts are a very rough equivalent to counties/shires. Most suburbs fall under one of 8-10 districts, with some suburbs being cut in half by two districts. Most country towns have their own councils. They mostly handle rubbish pickup, library services and co-ordinating events in their area as well as services such as immunisation for those that need it) placed a bylaw that effectively banned preaching in the Rundle Mall area (you could apply for a permit, but there are a number of conditions that you had to follow: of course the preacher nuts didn't follow these). Buskers and the like were OK. The group didn't like that and took it to the district court. District Court said the bylaws were invalid. Didn't like that, so they took it to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court upheld the bylaws and stated that they were valid. Preachers didn't like THAT so they took it all the way to the High Court. (I should add that the District Court and Supreme Courts hear different cases)

The rule doesn't stop them from preaching, it stops them from conducting their practices the way they have been. So they can't wave signs and start screaming at people anymore. If they do, oop, fine and jail time

It also does give the protest groups the right to protest should it be deemed necessary.

[draco664]

My, that's a lot of legal dollars flushed down the drain just to try and overturn some council bylaws...

[fireheart17]

My, that's a lot of legal dollars flushed down the drain just to try and overturn some council bylaws...

Well from what I've heard, the council has gone for a slightly more middle ground. They're allowing preaching, but not in the way that these guys are happy with . Basically, the rules they have are as follows:

-They have to provide photo ID and make their application at least 2 days beforehand to the council. (although given their pictures have been in the media quite a bit, it's not that hard to identify them)
-Using only ONE sign which can't be any bigger than about a metre square.
-No more than 4 people can gather for their "session" and all of them need to have a permit. (so all of them can be easily ID'd)
-They can't pass out pamphlets near a business or put them on car windscreens (not that hard to do in this instance as there are 3-4 paid carparks nearby)
-They can't advertise other businesses.
-They can't use a stage or podium. So no more overturned milk crates.
-they have to stay at least 50 metres away from buskers or anything else that's going on.

As far as I'm aware, the spruikers for certain shops are exempt from the bylaw, but I'm not 100%.

And from what I've heard, the group are going to challenge them yet again. It also appears that since the group represented themselves, the bill is going to be paid by the taxpayer
I am kind of hoping that the next time they challenge it that the group is forced to pay the bill themselves. It's bordering on absolute freaking ridiculousness.

I can't wait to see them challenge these based on religious grounds...they won't get very far. (You CAN preach without needing a giant sign)

[fireheart17]

And they're ba-ack....

This time though, they crashed a marriage equality rally in Sydney.

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/loca...-rally-yet.htm

Unlike last time though, the police actually DID something, moved the preacher idiots along and told the rally folks to calm down.

Also, unlike SA (their home state), the law in New South Wales doesn't cover religion. It covers homosexuality, marriage/civil union*, transgender rights, right to associate freely**, age, sex, disability and so on, but not religion. So they can't cry "discrimination!" at the NSW police. Federal law also covers age, sex, sexuality, race and criminal record/association. Basically, they just screwed themselves over

*-australia does not have official civil partnerships in most states, but gay couples can apply for things that are granted to heterosexual couples such as social security.

**-by this, you can't discriminate against someone for associating with say, a political party, unless it's a job requirement, or it jeopardises the health and safety of the company. For instance, you CAN discriminate against someone who wants to apply for a job helping a MP if they're a member of the other party, but you can't discriminate against someone who wants to apply for a job in a bike store because of his past association with a bikie club.

[fireheart17]

So now we've gone from a "church" to a cult. All I can say is "karma bitches! "

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-0...ctices/5948064