The Crime of Being Annoying... (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

I'm sure all of you have read the paper on thishttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national...formhtmlbpollba/2008/06/30/1214677946009.html and thishttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national...e/2008/07/01/1214678038215.html?page=fullpage.

i haven't managed to get my hands on the new Regs (hfis, can you give me a hand?) and do some nerding, but based on what the reports, i concur with Dominic Knighthttp://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/dom_knight/019325.html in saying,

There are so many things wrong with this legislation. What could be more patently un-Australian than passing a law against taking the piss? And especially when we're talking about an institution that deserves it as thoroughly as the Catholic Church. Its history of sexual abuse, and then covering that abuse up, and its backward attitude to contraception which will cost countless lives in the African AIDS pandemic thoroughly justify protest, and the mere fact that it's one of the world's most rich and powerful institutions renders it an excellent target for dissent. As does the fact that, like Australia under Kevin Rudd, it has a leader who believes he's infallible. But instead of upholding our tradition of peacefully poking fun at the mighty, the police are being sent out to make sure our precious pontiff and pilgrims can move about the city in an irritation-free bubble.

And how do they propose to define "annoying", anyway? I can't think of a more subjective, vague principle. For instance, I find Kyle Sandilands annoying, but I'm not about to ask the police to prevent him from broadcasting, as tempting a prospect as that is. And are the police the right person to make these kinds of calls? They weren't exactly big fans of The Chaser's during APEC, or that little incident with the Bulldogs. So if they get to determine what constitutes "annoying", you can guarantee that the line will be drawn very rigidly indeed. But their calls on the day were ultimately at odds, in those cases, with what the DPP and a court eventually decided. Our police force is known for many things, but not generally its excellent sense of humour.

Linguistics expert Nick Riemer, from the University of Sydney, said the word annoy had its origins in the french word for annoyance - ennui. The Oxford Dictionary defines 'annoy' as causing "slight anger or mental distress'', but Dr Riemer said the word was extremely ambiguous. "One person's annoyance may be another person's freedom of expression,'' he said. Dr Riemer said the wording of the new laws would be a nightmare for those tasked with enforcing the legislation. "One guess is that [the lawmakers] did it very quickly and on the run. Or it may be that they wanted to pass the laws to placate someone but make them totally meaningless when challenged,'' he said.

i wonder if there's a Constitutional argument that can be run...

 

[withoutaface]

If you could frame what you're doing as political communication, then yes.

 

[Frigid]

apparently people are printing t-shirts mocking the new law (eg, "THIS T-SHIRT JUST COST ME $5500")..

...i wonder if Durex could be convinced to hand out condoms

 

[Rafy]

i haven't managed to get my hands on the new Regs

The regulations can be found in the latest NSW Government Gazette

Relevant section is as follows:

7 Control of conduct within World Youth Day declared areas

(1) An authorised person may direct a person within a World Youth Day declared area to cease engaging in conduct that:
(a) is a risk to the safety of the person or others, or
(b) causes annoyance or inconvenience to participants in a World Youth Day event, or
(c) obstructs a World Youth Day event.

(2) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with a direction given to the person under subclause (1).
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) A person is not guilty of an offence under this clause unless it is established that the authorised person warned the person that a failure to comply with the direction is an offence.

(4) In this clause, authorised person means:
(a) a police officer, or
(b) a member of an SES unit (within the meaning of the State Emergency Service Act 1989) or a member of the NSW Rural Fire Service, but only if the member is authorised by the Authority in writing for the purposes of this clause.

 

[Raven3333]

Hmmm, this really isn't introducing anything much tougher then we already have in place. Really the police can do just as much with a move on order, only difference is they don't have to warn you three times. Admittidly you would not get an outrageous fine. If you are that keen on disrupting WYD just alternate your annoying activity, from my understanding they have to give you a warning for each offence, and if you get asked to go else where just do it plenty of places to go. From memory (mind you very intoxicated at the time) I think a move on order is ineffect for up to 4hours of being issued.

 

[Frigid]

so these following places are 'World Yoof Day declared areas' where we can't be 'annoying' or 'inconvenient':

Sydney Adventist College Activity Centre, 159 Albert Road, Strathfi eld NSW 2135
Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Barangaroo site as defined in section 3 (1) of the World Youth Day Act 2006
Hyde Park Barracks, Queens Square, Macquarie Street, Sydney NSW 2000
B’nai B’rith Centre, 22 Yurong Street, East Sydney NSW 2010
Birrung Gallery, 134 William Street, Potts Point NSW 2011
Customs House, 31 Alfred Street, Circular Quay NSW 2000
St Mary’s Cathedral, corner College Street and St Mary’s Road, Sydney NSW 2000
Darling Harbour (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Regulation 2006)
The Domain, Sydney NSW 2000
Emmanuel Synagogue, 7 Ocean Street, Woollahra NSW 2025
Cinema Paris, Entertainment Quarter, Bent Street, Moore Park NSW 2021
Pilgrim Walking Route (as shown on the map entitled “World Youth Day – Pilgrimage walking route” prepared by the Authority and dated 29 May 2008 and deposited in the office of the Authority)
Barangaroo Walking Route (as shown on the map entitled “World Youth Day – Main event walking routes: Tuesday to Friday 15 to 18 July 2008” prepared by the Authority and displayed on the Authority’s website)
Centennial Park, Centennial Park NSW 2021
Randwick Racecourse as defined in section 3(1) of the World Youth Day Act 2006
Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney NSW 2000
Royal Agricultural Society Showground, Homebush Bay NSW 2140
The University of Sydney NSW 2006
Art Gallery of New South Wales, Art Gallery Road, The Domain, Sydney NSW 2000
State Sports Centre, Australia Avenue, Sydney Olympic Park NSW 2127
Sydney Harbour Bridge
Sydney Olympic Park as defined in Schedule 1 to the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act 2001
Harbourside Amphitheatre, Darling Harbour NSW 2000
Hyde Park, between Elizabeth and College Streets, Sydney NSW 2000
Legion of Mary, 243 Parramatta Road, Sydney NSW 2000
Loreto Kirribilli, 85 Carabella Street, Kirribilli NSW 2061
The Mint, 10 Macquarie Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Maunsell Wickes at Barry Stern Galleries, 19 Glenmore Road, Paddington NSW 2021
Mary MacKillop Place, 7-11 Mount Street, North Sydney NSW 2060
National Trust Centre, Observatory Hill, The Rocks NSW 2000
The University of Notre Dame Australia (Darlinghurst Campus), 180 Darlinghurst Road, Darlinghurst NSW 2010
Our Lady of the Rosary, 4 Roma Avenue, Kensington NSW 2033
Sydney Opera House, Bennelong Point, Sydney NSW 2000
The Sydney Jewish Museum, 148 Darlinghurst Road, Darlinghurst NSW 2010
King Street Gallery on William, 177 William Street, Darlinghurst NSW 2010
St Collumcilles, Pring Street, Woolloomooloo NSW 2011
St Joseph’s Catholic Church, 10 Albert Street, Edgecliff NSW 2027
St Paul’s Catholic Chapel, 19 Stanley Street, East Sydney NSW 2000
St Peter’s Catholic Church, 243 Devonshire Street, Surry Hills NSW 2010
St Scholastica’s Chapel, 4 Avenue Road, Glebe NSW 2037
St Scholastica’s Trixie, Forrest Hall, 4 Avenue Road, Glebe NSW 2037
Tumbalong Park, Darling Harbour NSW 2000
National Council of Jewish Women of Australia, 111-113 Queen Street, Woollahra NSW 2025
Paddington Uniting Church, 395 Oxford Street, Paddington NSW 2021
Wynyard Railway Station, Barangaroo site, Sydney Opera House, Royal Botanic Gardens, The Domain, Hyde Park, Central Station, Darling Harbour, Centennial Parklands, Randwick Racecourse and Mary MacKillop Place as shown on the map entitled “Map of key World Youth Day venues and facilities in and around Sydney City” dated Monday 23 June 2008 prepared by the Authority and displayed on the Authority’s website

and a bunch of accommodation sites (mostly schools) and major train stations...

lovely.

oh hang on a sec. Reg 10:

For the purposes of section 55 of the Act:
(a) each offence arising under a provision specified in Column 1 of Schedule 1 is prescribed as a penalty notice offence, and
(b) the prescribed penalty for such an offence is the amount specified in relation to the offence in Column 2 of Schedule 1

Column 1 Column 2
Offence Penalty
Clause 7(2) $300

so it's only $300, no $5500. bargain!

 

[melsc]

Oh fantastic so I can't even take the piss in my local area when picking my brother up from his school (Sydney Adventist College Strathfield NSW 2135)or just driving around (Olympic Park and the like!) I am so tempted to walk/drive around proclaiming the benefits of pre-marital sex with condoms and how homosexual weddings would be awesome!

Reading the list, my street is full of private schools and some are on the list, I am going to have to be on good behaviour all week They left out Strathfield station...I can do my bidding there...*evil laugh*

Unfortunately I need the money so I will have to brave the public transport system into the city and risk getting searched...hmmm maybe I should fill my bag and pockets with condoms and anything remotely homosexual.

Sigh, I am all for respect for others beliefs but why are ours silenced at the expense of theirs, if they are allowed to try and push god on me why cant I push "a life of sin" on them

 

[Raven3333]

Could they actually do anything if i had a 12inch dildo in my bag

 

[Frigid]

theoretically (and only because i'm interested in statutory interpretation), to beat this regulation you can:

1. Be annoying in a World Yoof Day area [reg 7(1)(b)],

2. Get warned by the authorised person [reg 7(3)],

3. Comply with the warning [reg 7(2)],

4. Shuffle off to another World Yoof Day area, and

5. Repeat ad infinitum.


or as Julian (of Chaser fame)http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...d/2008/07/02/1214950843595.html?page=fullpage put it this morning:

An attention-grabbing act of defiance can be just as effective as breaking a bad law, not to mention far less hassle. Lord knows World Youth Day is appealing: it's the chance to take on two decrepit authoritarian institutions for the price of one. So if these laws have got you thinking about doing something less bland and boring than writing a self-righteous opinion piece for a newspaper, here's my advice.

First, don't be intimidated. That's what they want. Second, try to be smart about it and prepare carefully. For example, even under this awful law it's not illegal to annoy World Youth Day participants (although you can't obstruct the event) - it's only illegal to not comply with a direction to stop. With the right idea, it may be possible to make a good statement, or even just a good joke, before anyone asks you to stop.

Remember, you're not committing an offence if you have a reasonable excuse - in the end, a court will decide what's reasonable. But if you conduct yourself in a calm and sensible way and try to stick to the rules, you'll give yourself a better chance of getting away with it.

Finally, film everything for as long as you possibly can (mobile phones are great for this) and try to make sure you keep the footage. Even just seeing the ridiculous situations this law creates, and potentially the heavy-handed way it gets enforced, might help turn the tide against bad governments passing bad laws.

And my last bit of advice: whatever you do, don't rely on my advice.

 

[katie tully]

So what is stopping over zealous Catholics from dobbing people in for being annoying, when they're really not?

 

[Frigid]

nothing katie. but the regulation requires the authorised person (police or SES member) to give the annoying/inconvenient person a warning and the person must fail to comply with that warning before the person is guilty of an offence under reg 7(2).

oh and for balance, here's an opinion issued by the WYD ministerial spokespersonhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...t/2008/07/02/1214950843602.html?page=fullpage:

The community concern is understandable, but unwarranted. It could be facetiously described as libertarian "moral panic". The regulatory powers are no different to those at many other venues of past major events - secular or not. Reports that these powers were specifically requested by Cardinal George Pell are not only false, they constitute a febrile conspiracy theory worthy of a Dan Brown novel.

Much has been made of the regulations that give police the ability to direct a person to leave for causing "annoyance or inconvenience" at World Youth Day celebrations. Critics have suggested that the regulations are a sweeping new power so police can protect the sensitivities of participants.

In fact, the "annoyance and inconvenience" clause is neither new nor specific to World Youth Day. It is present in at least 15 acts and regulations in NSW, ranging from the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation to the Sydney Cricket Ground and Sydney Football Stadium by-laws. Penalties can be more severe for creating "annoyance and inconvenience" than those proposed for World Youth Day, such as a maximum penalty of $11,000 under the Marine Park Regulation.

Decisions to direct a person to leave for causing annoyance or inconvenience at any of the venues under these regulations are decisions for police. NSW police exercise their discretion to provide crowd management and public safety at sporting events and rock concerts - with no evidence that their powers are being abused.

Another sensationalist claim is that protestors will need to have placards and T-shirts pre-approved by the police. Police do not have this power nor will they have it for World Youth Day. They are not fashion police or censors of content. Their primary concern is the safe conduct of an event and facilitating protestors' lawful right to state a point of view.

Police are there to ensure that protestors can exercise their right to protest. Police do ask that protestors fulfil the requirement that always exists for protests - advising police of the time, place, and size of the protest, and providing a contact number for the organiser. If the protest involves a march, the police will provide advice on how and where that can take place safely.

A final sensationalist claim is that police have the power to prevent people from using billboards and skywriting to broadcast protest messages. In fact, these activities will be prevented under provisions that are designed to prevent ambush marketing. It protects commercial sponsors, not the sensitivities of the event participants. This is entirely consistent with other major events such as the Olympics or the rugby World Cup.

...

This is an event that the people of Sydney can choose to share in and enjoy - if they want to. World Youth Day participants from almost 200 nations are staying across metropolitan Sydney in people's homes, school halls, and various hotel and hostel accommodation. They'll be attending events each morning in local churches and venues. In the afternoon, participants will come to the CBD for the big events - like the Pope's arrival on Sydney Harbour - and a youth festival each day.

We are Australia's major event capital, and Sydneysiders are terrific hosts. We are ready to welcome the youth of the world to our great city.

 

[travelfish]

On the very topic of protesting this event (and motivated in particular by these ridiculous laws), a friend of mine obtained a T-shirt which says in large letters:

"The Pope Touched Me DownUnder"

I nearly died from laughter the first time I saw it.

 

[hfis]

Aw, a research question and I was away. Good find, Rafy.

I must agree with the general consensus that these regulations are shite. Considering how liberally the courts seem to interpret 'offensive language' laws and other public order offences, I think that the terms 'annoyance' and 'inconvenience' are just asking for charges to be thrown out (if they are bought at all).

 

[MichaelJackson2]

freedom of political communication eh?? so i guess the question is whether gagging people is a measure that is reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieving the objective of maintaining peace and order. hmm food for thought.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I think that the terms 'annoyance' and 'inconvenience' are just asking for charges to be thrown out (if they are bought at all).

I don't think this ridiculous law is designed to stand up in court... I think it is designed to allow police to arrest and detain people for whatever they want so that they don't "annoy" the stupid christians for however long they are here for.

 

[Bobness]

theoretically (and only because i'm interested in statutory interpretation), to beat this regulation you can:

1. Be annoying in a World Yoof Day area [reg 7(1)(b)],

2. Get warned by the authorised person [reg 7(3)],

3. Comply with the warning [reg 7(2)],

4. Shuffle off to another World Yoof Day area, and

5. Repeat ad infinitum.


or as Julian (of Chaser fame) put it this morning:

How would the different applications of the golden rule or an activist / formalist approach affect the interpretation? I cannot say i have read the whole legislation (although we covered an excerpt in class) but would they not note down the details of those who received warnings?

I ask also as an interested 'statute studies' individual.

P.S. Probably very late but congratulations on the grad position for Minters! Or was it Blake Dawsons (the 2nd rung comment could apply to either i believe) Both excellent, i hope you enjoy your future work!

 

[Rafy]

Anti-annoyance regulations irk judges

THREE Federal Court judges yesterday voiced their concern about regulations that outlaw annoying behaviour at World Youth Day, with one declaring trivial acts could be punished.

Sydney University students Rachel Evans and Amber Pike challenged the validity of the provisions, which can lead to fines of up to $5500, saying they offended the implied constitutional right to free speech.

Their barrister, John Griffiths SC, argued the provisions were "intended to protect, without limit, the sensitivities of the participants". "They act to restrict normal political debate and civil discourse which takes place in a democracy, even though that conduct is taking place without any threat of physical violence or retaliation," Dr Griffiths said.

He added that 16 other acts contained anti-annoyance laws. Thirteen contained some guidance as to what constituted annoying conduct.

But Dr Griffiths said that, because the WYD legislation offered no such guidance, it could cover behaviour that simply made a participant anxious.

NSW Solicitor-General Michael Sexton QC denied the laws were designed to inhibit freedom of speech, but conceded that what constituted annoying behaviour depended on the judgment of the authorities.

Justice Margaret Stone suggested it was "difficult to use the term annoying and not have it include something entirely trivial". "The fact is it includes both (the serious and the trivial). That is the difficulty," she said.

She was puzzled by Mr Sexton's claim that parliament could regulate any conduct at WYD.

Justice Catherine Branson said something that annoyed one person could please another.

"It's the subjective element that ... I find most troubling," she told Mr Sexton. "There's a risk of public life in Sydney becoming extraordinarily bland over a period of some weeks because of the force of this (legislation)."

She took issue with the breadth of the phrase "causes annoyance". "You don't even have to engage in annoying behaviour," she said.

Justice Robert French also questioned the scope: "How about barracking for the Dockers while you are sitting in the middle of a bunch of Swans supporters? I've done that."

The Sydney court reserved its decision until Tuesday, the first day of festivities, raising the prospect that organisers may have to proceed without the protection of the laws, passed without parliamentary debate two weeks ago.

The proceedings contained one shock when Mr Sexton passed up a list of World Youth Day events, after Justice Branson suggested that without such a list "we may be wasting our time".

Dr Griffiths stressed that his clients would only engage in peaceful protests, such as handing out condoms and pamphlets.

 

[amaccas]

hahaha I laughed at Justice French's comment

 

[neo o]

French for CJ!

 

[Rafy]

Evans v State of New South Wales [2008] FCAFC 130

1. It be hereby declared that Clause 7(1)(b) of the World Youth Day Regulation 2008 is invalid, as beyond the regulation making power conferred by s 58 of the World Youth Day Act 2006 (NSW), to the extent that it purports to empower an authorised person to direct a person within a World Youth Day declared area to cease engaging in conduct that causes annoyance to participants in a World Youth Day event.