Street Preaching.

[Bolero]

Originally Posted by Lilith

Oh Mister B! Wouldn't it be lovely if the judge ordered each side to pay half of the wages of a cheerful psychic to stand on the street as moderator between the protesters and the church?

Lol!

Seriously, there is only one answer - divine intervention.. God really needs to step in and sort out who's right, and who's a money-grubbing paedophile.

[Blue Lightning]

Interesting. I did a quick look around, it it seems most states have current legislation directed to protecting religious services, derived historically from British Imperial legislation. Is it a further example (if one is needed) of what a privileged place religion has in our society? I note that there are summary offences about disrupting football matches, etc.

South Australia: Section 7A of the Summary Offences Act

Link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/s...53189/s7a.html

7A—Obstructing or disturbing religious services etc

(1) A person who intentionally—

(a) obstructs or disturbs—

(i) a religious service; or

(ii) a wedding or funeral (whether secular or religious); or

(b) obstructs or disturbs persons proceeding to or from a religious service, wedding or funeral in a way that is calculated to be offensive and is related in some way to their attendance, or intention to attend, the religious service, wedding or funeral,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10 000 or imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) In this section—

"religion" means any philosophy or system of belief that is generally recognised in the Australian community as being of a religious nature;

"religious service" means a lawful assembly of the adherents of any religion for the purpose of prayer or any other form of religious observance.

My inference is that the lawyers for the "Influencers Church" will be seeking an injunction to restrain the Rundle St Street Preachers from breaching these provisions.

The South Australina legislation and its counterparts in the other states, have not often been the subject of litigation. I won't say ever, as I've only had a very quick look.

The other states are slightly different. Let's go anticlockwise:

Victoria: Section 21 of the Summary Offences Act.

Link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/v...66189/s21.html

Disturbing religious worship

21. Disturbing religious worship



(1) Any person who wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, the
proof of which lies on him, disquiets or disturbs any meeting of persons
lawfully assembled for religious worship or assaults any person lawfully
officiating at any such meeting or any of the persons there assembled shall be
guilty of an offence.

Penalty: 15 penalty units or imprisonment for three months.

Tasmania: Sections 13(3) and (3AA) of the Police Offences Act.

Link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/t...35140/s13.html

13. Public annoyance
...

(3) A person shall not wilfully disquiet or disturb any meeting, assembly, or congregation of persons assembled for religious worship.

(3AA) A person who contravenes a provision of subsection ... (3) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to –

(a) a penalty not exceeding 3 penalty units or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, in the case of an offence under subsection ... (3) ...

New South Wales: Section 39 of the Imperial Acts Application Act

Link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...69240/s39.html

39 Disturbing religious worship

Any person who wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on him, disquiets or disturbs any meeting of persons lawfully assembled for religious worship, or assaults any person lawfully officiating at any such meeting, or any of the persons there assembled, shall be liable upon summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding 1 penalty unit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months.

Queensland: Section 207 of the Criminal Code.

Link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...9994/s207.html

207 Disturbing religious worship
Any person who wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on the person, disquiets or disturbs any meeting of persons lawfully assembled for religious worship, or assaults any person lawfully officiating at any such meeting, or any of the persons there assembled, is guilty of an offence, and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for 2 months, or to a fine of $10.

Northern Territory: Section 46C of the Summary Offences Act
Link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...a189/s46c.html

Disturbing religious worship
A person who wilfully and without authorization, justification or excuse, proof of which is on him:

(a) interrupts or disturbs a meeting of persons lawfully assembled for religious worship;

(b) assaults a person lawfully officiating or a person assembled at such a meeting,

is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months.

Western Australia and the ACT: At a very quick look, they are the only ones which appear not to have kept an offence of this nature on the books. (Important Disclaimer : - This is not legal advice and should not be relied upon! I haven't done a complete search!) Also, obviously, I haven't looked at the external territories.

Other summary offences type provisions have had frequent consideration in the Courts, which would be likely to influence any case about these provisions, but that'a a very long story. Courts have usually read summary offence provisions as requiring a certain gravity of conduct before the offence is committed. Predisposition to allow at least some reasonable expression of free speech is also likely to be relevant, and in at least Queensland and Victoria, Religious vilification legislation might also be relevant. I could write a lot about all that, but, sadly, I have to do some real work.

[ptah]

Originally Posted by Iseeyouthere

You'd get a better result if you took a air horn to them.
!

The same thought occurred to me.

But is there a technology that might interrupt an annoying loudspeaker at source? Can feedback be induced with another loudspeaker, perhaps using directional microphones? (Here, I skip blithely over freedom of expression issues.)

[ptah]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

If Rundle Mall hadn't suffered enough... Hairy Christmas.

At least they were musical! Well, sort of.