The farce of World Youth Day

With little fanfare, the Iemma Government tabled a series of regulations last week which makes it an offence, punishable with a fine up to $5,500, to cause annoyance or inconvenience to a participant at a World Youth Day event”.

It is no secret that the Iemma Government dreads the prospect of a protest at a global event that is supposed to showcase Sydney to the world (and no doubt, detract attention from the scandal-plagued Government’s performance in the last couple of months). However, these regulations represent a severe threat to our right to express religious freedom and need to be scrapped. 

The regulations give a police officer or member of the SES or Rural Fire Service the power to issue a directive to a person in the vicinity of a WYD event to cease any activity that they consider to be a risk to themselves or other people, cause offence, or inconvenience participants at a WYD event. 

It is unclear how these new regulations will actually be used since the test is entirely subjective. It is possible that these regulations could be used against someone who for example, is wearing a T-shirt that legitimately questions the vast amounts of public expenditure on WYD. 

However, even more alarming is the fact that it is not entirely inconceivable that these new regulations could be used against someone who is wearing a form of religious garb that a participant at a WYD event finds offensive. Failing to remove the offending garment when so directed, could mean that the person is subjected to $5,500 fine. 

In a public statement NSW Bar Association president Anna Katzmann SC pointed out that these regulations were passed by way of an administrative edict. Generally speaking, laws which seek to proscribe criminal activity need to be passed as legislation, which means that the laws are subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny through the usual legislative processes.

It is obvious that the primary reason the Iemma Government chose to promulgate these regulations in this manner is because Iemma knew the community would not be convinced of the need for these draconian measures. 

The Catholic Church has denied lobbying the Iemma Government to make these regulations, which begs the question, whose interests is the Iemma Government serving?