World Youth Day - special coverage

[Eden]

No they are not closing off any parts of Sydney for it at all

No they aren't. Those were measures uniquely taken for the APEC meeting.

I dont know how security became an issue, I certainly didnt bring it up.

I agree. The WYD pilgrims are not a security threat.

It being done for and in the name of the WYD isnt enough?

Are you really suggesting that its perfectly fine to take away peoples rights and freedoms?

You keep saying that but ignoring the obvious response, its done in the churches name. This is suggest that the church is perfectly fine with removing peoples rights and freedoms.

The law went through the legal channels that it should. It was struck down. So, you have nothing to complain about now. And, the law was not introduced by the Catholic Church, it was introduced by the NSW gov't. The planners of WYD have a lot more on their plate than to become embroiled in local political matters. The fact that you think this law had anything to do with the Catholic Church itself is the issue. I've never seen such a law proposed in the past in any other WYD host country.

I have seen many people on here say that it is their right to protest homosexuality, gay pride events, abortion clinics and other things. Would it be ok to take the rights and freedoms to protest those things away?

My issue is with the handing out of condoms. I have no problem with homosexuals and atheists shouting about homosexuality and atheism to pilgrims... children... I do have a problem with adults trying to hand condoms to minor children. If I were the parents of those children, I would be furious!

Since it was done for WYD, it has plenty to do with them (especally after they endorse such action).

I don't believe that. In the 23 years of WYD, I've never seen another host country devise such a law.

They do have the option of opposing the governments regulations and ask for the removal of them as it impeades peoples freedoms, or even taking the government to court to remove the laws. Frankly it would be a positive PR oppotunity for the church.

How do you know they didn't? The law went forward in the legal system and was rejected. Don't worry. Adults have the right to hand out condoms to children now during WYD. Your rights are secure.

Well I guess that you are ok with removing peoples rights and freedoms.

The one right I do believe should be revoked is to pass out condoms to children. I don't care about silly shirts and signs. When I was at WYD, the few protesters we saw only got notice by any of the kids, if they were behaving in a loud and disruptive way that made us afraid we were going to verbally assaulted or touched.

It is unique, you were allowed to protest at the Olympics and APEC. You could have what ever "annoying" items you wanted for those two and not have to fear being arrested and fined ($5500). You could be arrested for simply going to your local take-out for something to eat if you have an "annoying item" and you are not even protesting anything!!!

It's not unique. The law was proposed, it was overturned. WYD had nothing to do with the proposal or the ensuing legal battle.

Unless you can name another event in Australia that have had the same bans on rights, then you would be wrong.

Unless you can name another WYD event that had the same bans on rights, then you would be wrong.

I am offended. Not by the "anti-catholic" comment, I expected that and am not suprised.

I am offended more by you chosing to read bits of what I presented, then reply with how you condone the removal of peoples rights as well as approving of the hiding of the destitute.

I've read your previous posts advocating homosexuality. Ax to grind?

Apparently you come from a country that prides itself on its freedom of speech and claim to come from a faith that prides itself on taking care of the needy.

Well thank you for your input.

The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world and there is nothing in my faith that says it is morally wrong to provide alternate accommodation for homeless people during large events. Also, my country that "prides itself on freedom of speech" hosted WYD in 1993 and there were no laws against protesters during the event. I have said it before and I'll say it again, I don't care about people wearing silly "No to Pope" shirts and holding signs and shouting. I don't think adults should have the "right" to give condoms to minors.

[Elric]

Originally Posted by Eden

There is nothing in my "religion" that says it is morally wrong to give homeless people alternative accommodations.

You seem confused about the difference between the NSW government actions and WYD. Firstly, the homeless have been given safe, clean accommodations and, secondly, the NSW gov't is trying to put their best foot forward during this event to encourage pilgrims to return home and speak highly of Sydney, to encourage future tourism.

OK with what? There is no strike taking place during WYD. The two parties reached an agreement. This never had anything to do with WYD anyway, other than the fact that the people threatening to strike were going to use the event to embarrass their gov't.

No, it doesn't. NSW is in charge of their own gov't and the actions they take, in their eyes, to ensure a successful event.

I'm quite sure that is the case.

I'll make it again. You should really research it before making such claims. There is nothing unique to WYD. Take for instance:

"But the state government and police stress there will be no need for a return of the controversial barriers that locked down chunks of Sydney during last year's APEC summit.
"Will we be using the APEC fence? No," NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said today.
"APEC was a security event.


"This is a celebration of youth and hope.
"For police it will be an exercise in crowd management and traffic control."


He said any barriers used would be the same as for other major events requiring crowd control."

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...016672,00.html


The added measure have nothing to do with the Catholic Church and everything to do with the fact that this is a major event that the NSW gov't would like to go off without a hitch.

I still don't see the issue. There is nothing in my religion against giving homeless people alternative accommodation during major events. Would you want 200,000 people traipsing past you while you sleep in a park?

Of course it's relevant. Your premise is that the measure being taken to ensure a successful event with WYD are somehow unique and unprecedented. As we can see from past events, the NSW gov't has taken similar steps to ensure that the Olympics and APEC meeting were successful. You mentioned the Olympics and APEC and now they are irrelevant?

I did thank you for your input.

But I have to say that I am amazed by your selective quoting, twisting of not only mine but your own comments (especally that last shot about relevence), the persistant "anti-catholic" overtures and these blind attacks you do.

The issues were:

The ban on protesting.

The penalties for having "annoying items" such as wearing a t-shirt.

The ban on industrial action.

The treatment of the destitute.

The first three have never been done before for any other event, which includes the Olymics and the APEC summit. Although I have noticed that you tried to evade the first two at least in your "comparisons".

These are rights and freedoms that we are entitled to and you aprove of the removal of these rights for this specific occasion (remember it has never been done before).

The last one, well there was an interview with one of the homeless in the link I provided involving that issue which sheads light on the "alternative accomodation". There is also the free accomodation and free meanls for visitors while the homeless are hidden away and the moral high ground claimed by the group running the event as well as the visitors to the event.

Either way that you look at it, these are not good things and should not be ignored.

Like I said, I thought that people would object to peoples rights and freedoms being removed, especally from those that came from a country that prided itself on its freedoms.

Apparently I was very wrong.

[Eden]

Originally Posted by Elric

I did thank you for your input.

But I have to say that I am amazed by your selective quoting, twisting of not only mine but your own comments (especally that last shot about relevence), the persistant "anti-catholic" overtures and these blind attacks you do.

The issues were:

The ban on protesting.

When did I say I supported that? I only commented on your assertions that the Catholic Church created the ban. I have never heard of such a ban at any WYD in the 22 previous years, so your accusations are not supported by the past history of the event. I even gave you my personal experience with protesters at WYD in 1993 to illustrate that, at prior WYD events, no such laws were in effect. I'm not aware of them even being discussed.

The penalties for having "annoying items" such as wearing a t-shirt.

When did I say I agreed with the ban? If you look again, you'll realize that I was attacking your assertion that the Catholic Church had something to do with it. I do believe there should be a ban on adults handing out condoms to minors, though. I don't think that should be legal.

The ban on industrial action.

Again, nothing to do with the Catholic Church. The NSW gov't put this action into effect to avoid embarrassment for an event that could prove to be great advertising for future tourism.

The treatment of the destitute.

The destitute were given alternate accommodation. I don't see what is cruel about giving similar care in an alternate location.

The first three have never been done before for any other event, which includes the Olymics and the APEC summit. Although I have noticed that you tried to evade the first two at least in your "comparisons".

Looking at the 22 prior years of WYD history, your attempts to smear the Catholic Church and WYD for actions taken by the NSW gov't for an event being held in their territory fails.

These are rights and freedoms that we are entitled to and you aprove of the removal of these rights for this specific occasion (remember it has never been done before).

Show me where I said I support rights being taken away? Where? I clearly stated that your assertions that any of this had anything to do with the Catholic Church are false. It's all NSW and their attempts to hold a successful event to generate future tourism.

The last one, well there was an interview with one of the homeless in the link I provided involving that issue which sheads light on the "alternative accomodation". There is also the free accomodation and free meanls for visitors while the homeless are hidden away and the moral high ground claimed by the group running the event as well as the visitors to the event.

What was objectionable about the alternate accommodations? Can you provide specifics, please?

Either way that you look at it, these are not good things and should not be ignored.

Like I said, I thought that people would object to peoples rights and freedoms being removed, especally from those that came from a country that prided itself on its freedoms.

Apparently I was very wrong.

Again, show me where I said I agreed with the ban on protesters. The only "right" I said I disagree with is on adults giving condoms to minors. The only objection I have had with your comments is your false representation of the Catholic Church as being responsible for the legal proposals of the NSW gov't.

[Elric]

Originally Posted by Eden

No they aren't. Those were measures uniquely taken for the APEC meeting.

They are closing down parts of Sydney for WYD.

I agree. The WYD pilgrims are not a security threat.

So why bring it up?

The law went through the legal channels that it should. It was struck down. So, you have nothing to complain about now. And, the law was not introduced by the Catholic Church, it was introduced by the NSW gov't. The planners of WYD have a lot more on their plate than to become embroiled in local political matters. The fact that you think this law had anything to do with the Catholic Church itself is the issue. I've never seen such a law proposed in the past in any other WYD host country.

Twisting things agian.

My issue is with the handing out of condoms. I have no problem with homosexuals and atheists shouting about homosexuality and atheism to pilgrims... children... I do have a problem with adults trying to hand condoms to minor children. If I were the parents of those children, I would be furious!

Thank you for evading the question. Remember that I did say that I dont agree with it either.

I don't believe that. In the 23 years of WYD, I've never seen another host country devise such a law.

Now you are either contradicting yourself, or trying that word twisting thing.

How do you know they didn't?

For starters because they endorsed the laws and secondly they made no comments about opposing/condemning said laws.

The law went forward in the legal system and was rejected. Don't worry. Adults have the right to hand out condoms to children now during WYD. Your rights are secure.

Yes and who went to the Hight Court opposing the laws?

Who supported those that went to the High Court?

Should they have had to have gone to the courts to oppose them in the first place?

Why are you takiing swipes at me about the condom thing when I already said that I dont agree with it?

The one right I do believe should be revoked is to pass out condoms to children. I don't care about silly shirts and signs. When I was at WYD, the few protesters we saw only got notice by any of the kids, if they were behaving in a loud and disruptive way that made us afraid we were going to verbally assaulted or touched.

You dont care about silly shirts and signs?

You dont get it do you.

The "annoying" items thing is completly ambigous, there was no defination provided for what was meant by "annoying". A person wearing a Metallica t-shirt who is not even trying to protest but minding their own business could be arrested and fined for having an "annoying" t-shirt, its not just those dumb "No to Pope" t-shirts.

It's not unique. The law was proposed, it was overturned. WYD had nothing to do with the proposal or the ensuing legal battle.

Broken record time:

It is unique, they were enforcing them specifically for that event so it does have something to do with them.

Unless you can name another WYD event that had the same bans on rights, then you would be wrong.

Actually that would make me right.

But we were talking about events heald in Australia, or more specifically Sydney.

I've read your previous posts advocating homosexuality. Ax to grind?

Excuse me?

I have never advocated homosexuality. That is twice that you have tried to be offensive to me personally, yet both times have been way off the mark.

The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world and there is nothing in my faith that says it is morally wrong to provide alternate accommodation for homeless people during large events. Also, my country that "prides itself on freedom of speech" hosted WYD in 1993 and there were no laws against protesters during the event. I have said it before and I'll say it again, I don't care about people wearing silly "No to Pope" shirts and holding signs and shouting. I don't think adults should have the "right" to give condoms to minors.

When you reply to something, it does help to completly read what you are replying to.

I really dont think that there is any more that can be said. You are not willing to read someones argument or even try to understand it, you are trying to make this into an anti-catholic issue when that wasnt the intention.

So enjoy WYD and ignore what was presented.

[Elric]

Originally Posted by Eden

When did I say I supported that?

You have been very quiet about opposing such bans and have even raised arguments defending them.

I only commented on your assertions that the Catholic Church created the ban.

You could not have done that, because I have made no such assertions.

Dont put words in my mouth, that is dishonest.

I have never heard of such a ban at any WYD in the 22 previous years, so your accusations are not supported by the past history of the event.

I never mentioned anything about previous WYDs or any other events held outside of Australia. I made absoultly not mention about the history of WYD at all, so I dont know what accusations you are talking about.

I even gave you my personal experience with protesters at WYD in 1993 to illustrate that, at prior WYD events, no such laws were in effect. I'm not aware of them even being discussed.

Well that has nothing to do with anything that I have brought up.

When did I say I agreed with the ban?

I already answered that.

If you look again, you'll realize that I was attacking your assertion that the Catholic Church had something to do with it.

Again dont put words in my mouth, that is dishonest.

I do believe there should be a ban on adults handing out condoms to minors, though. I don't think that should be legal.

Again with the condoms, I have already said that I dont agree with what they are doing (several times now).

Again, nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

This argument has already been covered.

The NSW gov't put this action into effect to avoid embarrassment for an event that could prove to be great advertising for future tourism.

Oh yes thats it. It has nothing to do with WYD at all because they wont be using the public transport system.

The destitute were given alternate accommodation. I don't see what is cruel about giving similar care in an alternate location.

Read the link I provided.

Looking at the 22 prior years of WYD history, your attempts to smear the Catholic Church and WYD for actions taken by the NSW gov't for an event being held in their territory fails.

Again putting words in my mouth, that is dishonest. I have not attempted to "smear" the catholic chrch, I think that you should stop making false statements like this.

Show me where I said I support rights being taken away?

Already answered and you still have not said that you disagree with them.

Where? I clearly stated that your assertions that any of this had anything to do with the Catholic Church are false. It's all NSW and their attempts to hold a successful event to generate future tourism.

No you kept repeating the same thing over and over, ignoring hte response ot it. I cant help that.

What was objectionable about the alternate accommodations? Can you provide specifics, please?

Already did, you chose not to read it.

Again, show me where I said I agreed with the ban on protesters.

Already answered.

The only "right" I said I disagree with is on adults giving condoms to minors. The only objection I have had with your comments is your false representation of the Catholic Church as being responsible for the legal proposals of the NSW gov't.

Whats that four time putting words into my mouth in one post?

I said that it has something to do with them because it is being done for their event and basically in their name. I also said that the could have objected to such laws being put in place specifically for their event and asked the government not to, but instead they chose to endorse the laws.

I have not once mentioned another WYD in any of my posts and I have repeatedly stated that these laws have not been made for any other event in Australia citing the Olympics and APEC as examples. That means that WYD is getting prefered treatment in Asutralia.

I object the the laws specifically not to the event, but because it is a catholic event I thought people here would be interested in hearing about it. If it was another group that this was being done with, I would still feel the same way.

[Eden]

Originally Posted by Elric

They are closing down parts of Sydney for WYD.

How is that "special treatment"? You have yet to prove "special treatment". The same was true of the Olympics and APEC.

So why bring it up?

Because the APEC meeting policies were shaped due to the security concerns. The WYD policies are shaped due to crowd control concerns. Since the pilgrims themselves are not a security threat, obviously, some members of the NSW gov't perceived protesters as being a possible threat to an otherwise peaceful event. I understand their concerns, but I don't support the suppression of freedom of speech. You have accused me of desiring suppression of freedom of speech and I have given you no reason to accuse me of such. You glaring error is in accusing the Catholic Church of proposing these annoyance laws.

Twisting things agian.

Prove to me that the Catholic Church proposed this law then. Show me where, in the past 22 years of WYD such a law has been in effect. You accuse the Catholic Church of involvement in NSW gov'tal affair yet, I think it's obvious to anyone without a bias against the Church, that members of the NSW gov't were concerned that protesters might cause disturbance in what would otherwise be a peaceful event (again, given the peaceful history of the prior 22 WYDs).

Thank you for evading the question. Remember that I did say that I dont agree with it either.

So, what is your issue with me or the Catholic Church? Take it up with the NSW gov't if you don't like the laws proposed by their members. Laws, which by the way, are not in effect.

Now you are either contradicting yourself, or trying that word twisting thing.

Do you know of any other annoyance laws in WYD host countries in the past 23 years? I don't. You would have to show a pattern to convince anyone that this annoyance law proposal has anything to do with the Catholic Church. Otherwise, it's clear that the proposal was uniquely conceived by members of the NSW gov't. You have assumed/accused me of being against freedom of speech, yet you can provide no instance in which I said I agreed with the laws. I am here to counter your wild assertions that the Catholic Church conceived this law and forced it on the NSW parliament.

For starters because they endorsed the laws and secondly they made no comments about opposing/condemning said laws.

A statement from the Catholic Church said “neither the Catholic Church nor Cardinal Pell asked for the additional police powers” and added “we understand some people may want to protest and they have the right to do so peacefully and lawfully.”

And a comment from someone in Australia on the same link:

Laws similar to these anti-annoyance laws were in existence during the Olympic Games in Sydney. Nobody protested then.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13110

Yes and who went to the Hight Court opposing the laws?

In an article that can hardly be said to be supportive of the Catholic Church, you can clearly see that this kind of restriction of speech is not uncommon in NSW. Even this article with disrespectful comments against the Church agrees that the Church is being unjustly accused of being wrongly accused of being involved in the proposed laws:

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20...-WYD-laws.html

It's people who have an ax to grind with the Catholic Church who continue to try to brand the Church guilty.

Why are you takiing swipes at me about the condom thing when I already said that I dont agree with it?

Because I think it's despicable that people are going to be out handing out condoms and coat hangers to children. I want to emphasize that I understand why the law was considered, given this kind of unseemly protest being planned, but I agree that the law should not have stood.

You dont care about silly shirts and signs?

No, I don't. Why should I care about silly shirts and signs? I could care less what people choose to embarrass themselves by wearing. Do you care about silly shirts and signs?

You dont get it do you.

You're the one who thinks I should care about silly shirts and signs.

The "annoying" items thing is completly ambigous, there was no defination provided for what was meant by "annoying". A person wearing a Metallica t-shirt who is not even trying to protest but minding their own business could be arrested and fined for having an "annoying" t-shirt, its not just those dumb "No to Pope" t-shirts.

I really could care less if someone wants to wear a silly Metallica or No to Pope shirt. You can't legislate fashion sense.

Broken record time:

It is unique, they were enforcing them specifically for that event so it does have something to do with them.

Wrong. It has been stated time and again in articles that these kinds of restrictions on speech have occurred at the Olympics and APEC. You're letting your issues with the Church blind you to that reality, that this is not unique to large events in Sydney.

"The NSW Government has an appalling record of savagely infringing civil liberties in its quest for law and order at "special events" (many of which are unwanted by Sydney residents). The entire CBD was locked down, businesses closed and hundreds of thousands of people subjected to massive inconvenience as part of the Government’s over-the-top APEC security measures last year -- which the Chaser exposed as being essentially hollow.

Last November, they made permanent extraordinary "temporary" police powers to stop, search and seize established in the wake of the Cronulla riots.

The NSW government is not alone in this sort of garbage. All Australian governments since 2001 have been guilty of a national security state-style hysteria under which they have dramatically expanded their powers of surveillance, harassment and criminal enforcement under the pretext of protecting their citizens."

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20...-WYD-laws.html

This is clearly a local political issue within NSW and Australia which you are trying to pin on the Catholic Church. I see a pattern in Australian politics. I don't see a pattern with WYD venues. It's obvious who is responsible for the proposed laws, and it's not the Catholic Church.

Actually that would make me right.

No, it makes you wrong. This kind of law has never existed at any other WYD venue, so it was not the Catholic Church who conceived of it and pushed it forward. Why you are unable to see the clear pattern within NSW and prior events is beyond me. You apparently don't want to see the obvious because you would have to drop the cover for your attacks on the Church.

But we were talking about events heald in Australia, or more specifically Sydney.

Exactly. The issue is Sydney. Not WYD. The issue is the NSW government. Not the Catholic Church. Bingo! We agree.

Excuse me?

I have never advocated homosexuality. That is twice that you have tried to be offensive to me personally, yet both times have been way off the mark.

I am referring to a previous thread, Scripture and Homosexuality, in which you defended homosexuality:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...49#post3665749

When you reply to something, it does help to completly read what you are replying to.

Are you going to share the inhumane conditions which the Catholic Church put upon the destitute? The NSW gov't actually asked two mobile Catholic food kitchens to move for the duration of WYD. I hardly think the Catholic Church would ask their own charities to the homeless to move! It's clear this is a gov't plan and not a plan of the Church. You are off-base in criticizing the Church for all of these gov't schemes.

I really dont think that there is any more that can be said. You are not willing to read someones argument or even try to understand it, you are trying to make this into an anti-catholic issue when that wasnt the intention.

I read your arguments and showed that you are in error to be blaming the Church instead of the NSW gov't.

So enjoy WYD and ignore what was presented.

I can enjoy WYD while at the same time, paying attention to what you presented and presenting counter evidence to your claims that the Catholic Church was restricting the rights of protesters, abusing the destitute and clamping down on union strikes.

[happygal]

I read about the news about moving all homeless pple out from Barangaroo for the Mass and yet not providing them a proper place to stay and it goes further by saying how can a faith of believers ignore the needy and poor, etc...Sometime, news from media can be alittle way out if they do not have sufficient information to report. Although i believe, the government did clear the homeless pple out from Barangaroo, but i believe the church wasn't informed about the dirty job which the government did, hence didn't offer respone to it. I believe, in regardless of which Sect we are from, as a believer, we are to help those needy and poor so i don't believe the church will reject the homeless.

Am not an Australian to talk bad how its current government works, but i do hope the government can perhaps do something about poverty among the minority.

[Elric]

Originally Posted by Eden

How is that "special treatment"? You have yet to prove "special treatment". The same was true of the Olympics and APEC.

Because the APEC meeting policies were shaped due to the security concerns. The WYD policies are shaped due to crowd control concerns. Since the pilgrims themselves are not a security threat, obviously, some members of the NSW gov't perceived protesters as being a possible threat to an otherwise peaceful event. I understand their concerns, but I don't support the suppression of freedom of speech. You have accused me of desiring suppression of freedom of speech and I have given you no reason to accuse me of such. You glaring error is in accusing the Catholic Church of proposing these annoyance laws.

Dont put words into my mouth, that is dishonest.

I did not accuse the church of proposing anything, suggesting that I did is dishonest.

You have given reason for suggestions that you aprove of such laws by you not stating that you oppose them and by making arguments defending them. Not once have you suggested that what was done is wrong.

Prove to me that the Catholic Church proposed this law then. Show me where, in the past 22 years of WYD such a law has been in effect. You accuse the Catholic Church of involvement in NSW gov'tal affair yet, I think it's obvious to anyone without a bias against the Church, that members of the NSW gov't were concerned that protesters might cause disturbance in what would otherwise be a peaceful event (again, given the peaceful history of the prior 22 WYDs).

Why do I need to show you where such laws were in effect for other WYD's?

I never even suggested that they had been, I have not even mentioned any other WYD.

Why do I need to prove the catholic church proposed these laws?

I never suggested that they did propose them.

Why are you asking me to prove things that I never even suggested?

So, what is your issue with me or the Catholic Church? Take it up with the NSW gov't if you don't like the laws proposed by their members. Laws, which by the way, are not in effect.

Im sorry, but that makes no sense in regard to the comment you were responding to, which was about you evading a question and a reminder that I dont agree with something (which you seem to suggest that I do).

Do you know of any other annoyance laws in WYD host countries in the past 23 years? I don't. You would have to show a pattern to convince anyone that this annoyance law proposal has anything to do with the Catholic Church.

Why do I have to show this pattern?

It has nothing to do with anything that I have stated.

Otherwise, it's clear that the proposal was uniquely conceived by members of the NSW gov't. You have assumed/accused me of being against freedom of speech, yet you can provide no instance in which I said I agreed with the laws. I am here to counter your wild assertions that the Catholic Church conceived this law and forced it on the NSW parliament.

Again with putting words into my mouth. If you have to make things up to argue a topic, maybe you shouldnt try to argue it in the first place.

As far as you being ok with these laws, you have made two arguments defending such action in your last post alone:

Since the pilgrims themselves are not a security threat, obviously, some members of the NSW gov't perceived protesters as being a possible threat to an otherwise peaceful event

I think it's obvious to anyone without a bias against the Church, that members of the NSW gov't were concerned that protesters might cause disturbance in what would otherwise be a peaceful event

When you make comments like that, its not difficult to gain the impression that you aprove of these actions.

A statement from the Catholic Church said “neither the Catholic Church nor Cardinal Pell asked for the additional police powers” and added “we understand some people may want to protest and they have the right to do so peacefully and lawfully.”

And a comment from someone in Australia on the same link:

Laws similar to these anti-annoyance laws were in existence during the Olympic Games in Sydney. Nobody protested then.

Similar laws were not in existence during the Olympics. I have to say that this comment is interesting:

Kristina Keneally, the Minister for World Youth Day, said the laws were framed based upon advice from police and after consulting with the Church.

I guess its food for thought.

In an article that can hardly be said to be supportive of the Catholic Church, you can clearly see that this kind of restriction of speech is not uncommon in NSW. Even this article with disrespectful comments against the Church agrees that the Church is being unjustly accused of being wrongly accused of being involved in the proposed laws:

That was a funny article with some extremist views.

It's people who have an ax to grind with the Catholic Church who continue to try to brand the Church guilty.

Oh thats right, me saying that the church not opposing these laws is wrong is "anti-catholic". Me saying that these laws were being put into place for a catholic event is "anti-catholic".

Because I think it's despicable that people are going to be out handing out condoms and coat hangers to children.

That doesnt answer the question that was asked.

I want to emphasize that I understand why the law was considered, given this kind of unseemly protest being planned, but I agree that the law should not have stood.

That is no defence to ban everyones rights, because some idiots choose to hand out condoms or be disrespectful. You rein them in rather than everyone.

No, I don't. Why should I care about silly shirts and signs? I could care less what people choose to embarrass themselves by wearing. Do you care about silly shirts and signs?

Considering that I am arguing for the right to protest, not really no.

But that wasnt the point.

You're the one who thinks I should care about silly shirts and signs.

I am?

I really could care less if someone wants to wear a silly Metallica or No to Pope shirt. You can't legislate fashion sense.

Well that is exactly what they were trying to do, you are not getting it.

That silly Metallica t-shirt can be deemed as "annoying" under the legislation and as such a person wearing it can be arrested and fined. That person could be innocently walking by on their way to the movies or to get a bite to eat having nothing to do with any protests and be considered "annoying".

There is no defination given as to what is deemed by "annoying" with these laws, your opinion about "silly" t-shirts and signs doesnt count with regard to these laws and my opinion doesnt count either. It is open to interperation by those authorised to arrest and give fines, as well as those that have been "annoyed".

Wrong. It has been stated time and again in articles that these kinds of restrictions on speech have occurred at the Olympics and APEC. You're letting your issues with the Church blind you to that reality, that this is not unique to large events in Sydney.

I think that is more than enough with the "anti-catholic" accusations, the person who tried to turn this into an "anti-catholic" issue is you. I think that you should get over your personal paranoia and try to understand that not every issue involving the catholic church is "anti-catholic", you are behaving like the boy who cried wolf and your accusations of "anti-catholic" have lost any meaning that had.

Add this to the to the false accusations, the false statements you have attributed to me and the insulting comments you have made, your credability is quite low.

Speaking of false accusations:

I am referring to a previous thread, Scripture and Homosexuality, in which you defended homosexuality:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...49#post3665749

It seems that when you try to dig up some dirt on me to attack me, you still get it wrong.

I dont "defend" homosexuality in that thread, I argue that the passages cited are ambigous, mistranslated or misinterpereted to mean something else. I also argue that there is nothing in the bible that can be used to 100% condone or condemn homosexuality.

ie: there is nothing saying 100% for certain that homosexuality is ok or wrong.

That is quite different to your accusation.

[Eden]

Originally Posted by Elric

Dont put words into my mouth, that is dishonest.

I did not accuse the church of proposing anything, suggesting that I did is dishonest.

You have given reason for suggestions that you aprove of such laws by you not stating that you oppose them and by making arguments defending them. Not once have you suggested that what was done is wrong.

Wrong. I have said I agree that the law should not have been implemented, only that it should be illegal for adults to hand out condoms to minors.

Why do I need to show you where such laws were in effect for other WYD's?

I never even suggested that they had been, I have not even mentioned any other WYD.

Why do I need to prove the catholic church proposed these laws?

I never suggested that they did propose them.

Then why should EWTN "cover" these issues? You came here originally to assert that EWTN should cover the political issues surrounding the removal of homeless people, the threatened transit strike and the annoyance laws. EWTN is not a news network, it's purpose is to teach the truth of the Catholic faith.

Read EWTN's mission:

http://www.ewtn.com/general/index.asp

People are watching EWTN's coverage because they want to enjoy a Catholic event from a Catholic perspective, not be distracted by the political vagaries of the NSW gov't.

Why are you asking me to prove things that I never even suggested?

Because you did suggest that the supposed "special treatment" was related to Catholicism. So, I ask you to show a pattern with past WYD's to illustrate this supposed connection.

Do you recall this exchange?

Originally Posted by Eden

The political maneuvers going on in advance of WYD have nothing to do with Catholicism.

And your response was:

Originally Posted by Elric

Actually it does, especally when such maneuvers are done for WYD.

Im sorry, but that makes no sense in regard to the comment you were responding to, which was about you evading a question and a reminder that I dont agree with something (which you seem to suggest that I do).

Why do I have to show this pattern?

It has nothing to do with anything that I have stated.

It has everything to do with your comment that the political maneuvers in NSW have something to do with Catholicism.

Again with putting words into my mouth. If you have to make things up to argue a topic, maybe you shouldnt try to argue it in the first place.

And remember this comment?

Originally Posted by Elric

Unless you can name another event in Australia that have had the same bans on rights, then you would be wrong.

I have shown you that this was not the case, as "special laws" have been put into place, for instance, during the Olympics and, apparently, no one complained. I don't agree with the laws, but to say that they are unique to WYD is ridiculous.

As far as you being ok with these laws, you have made two arguments defending such action in your last post alone:

When you make comments like that, its not difficult to gain the impression that you aprove of these actions.

Well, they certainly weren't concerned that the WYD pilgrims were going to disturb the peace. 23 years of peaceful events have given them reason to expect the same. The laws weren't proposed to protect atheists, homosexuals and condom users from Catholics, so there must be no concern of violence coming from that direction. Obviously, the people who proposed this law were concerned that the protesters would make Sydney look bad and drive away potential future tourists and future events organizers considering Sydney as a venue. I don't agree with the law, just to protect Sydney's image for potential future financial investments (i.e. large events), but I understand the rationale behind it.

Similar laws were not in existence during the Olympics.

Yes, they were. Research it:

"Public Order and the Sydney Olympics: Forget About the Right to Protest"

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2000/8.html

I have to say that this comment is interesting:

Kristina Keneally, the Minister for World Youth Day, said the laws were framed based upon advice from police and after consulting with the Church.

Kristina K. is a member of the NSW gov't in charge of the WYD event. The NSW gov't did consult with the Church and the resonse was:

"(N)either the Catholic Church nor Cardinal Pell asked for the additional police powers” and added “we understand some people may want to protest and they have the right to do so peacefully and lawfully.”

And you left this part out:

"She stressed that the laws were not drafted at the behest of Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney."

And you left out this part:

"Catholic priest and lawyer Frank Brennan says laws introduced for WYD are unworkable and unjust. Father Brennan says normal police powers would have been adequate for the event. "Questions about excessive police power not being adequately attentive to civil liberties, I think that's the last thing anyone wants," he said."

"The great charter of rights in the Catholic Church (Pope John the 23rd 1963) has very strong endorsement of the idea that we've got to safeguard the rights of everyone, not just pilgrims, but also protesters." The new laws undermine basic rights and are an affront to freedom of speech.

Oh thats right, me saying that the church not opposing these laws is wrong is "anti-catholic". Me saying that these laws were being put into place for a catholic event is "anti-catholic".

Making the statement that this supposed (proven not to be) "special treatment" has something to do with Catholicism (i.e. restricting the rights to free speech, to strike and the rights of the homeless) is anti-Catholic. It's anti (against) Catholics.

That doesnt answer the question that was asked.

That is no defence to ban everyones rights, because some idiots choose to hand out condoms or be disrespectful. You rein them in rather than everyone.

I didn't say everyone's rights should be restricted. I don't agree with the annoyance law. I think a separate law should be considered to make it illegal for adults to hand out condoms unsolicited to minors and for adults to harass minors by trying to hand them hangers or any other kind of pushy or threatening physical behavior. T-shirts, signs, shouting should be allowed. Physically interacting with pilgrims should not.

Considering that I am arguing for the right to protest, not really no.

But that wasnt the point.

At what point does a person's rights violate another's? Certainly, homosexuals and abortion rights activists have the right to protest WYD. I don't think they should have the right to physically interact with minors by passing out condoms or hangers unsolicited.

Well that is exactly what they were trying to do, you are not getting it.

That silly Metallica t-shirt can be deemed as "annoying" under the legislation and as such a person wearing it can be arrested and fined. That person could be innocently walking by on their way to the movies or to get a bite to eat having nothing to do with any protests and be considered "annoying".

And I have been quite clear that I disagree with that.

There is no defination given as to what is deemed by "annoying" with these laws, your opinion about "silly" t-shirts and signs doesnt count with regard to these laws and my opinion doesnt count either. It is open to interperation by those authorised to arrest and give fines, as well as those that have been "annoyed".

Again, I never said I agreed with the law.

I think that is more than enough with the "anti-catholic" accusations, the person who tried to turn this into an "anti-catholic" issue is you. I think that you should get over your personal paranoia and try to understand that not every issue involving the catholic church is "anti-catholic", you are behaving like the boy who cried wolf and your accusations of "anti-catholic" have lost any meaning that had.

Firstly, I'm not a "boy" or male and secondly, you are have welcomed the title since you asserted earlier that this "special" treatment has something to do with Catholicism.

Add this to the to the false accusations, the false statements you have attributed to me and the insulting comments you have made, your credability is quite low.

Speaking of false accusations:

It seems that when you try to dig up some dirt on me to attack me, you still get it wrong.

I wasn't "digging up dirt". I participated in that thread and I remember you.

I dont "defend" homosexuality in that thread, I argue that the passages cited are ambigous, mistranslated or misinterpereted to mean something else. I also argue that there is nothing in the bible that can be used to 100% condone or condemn homosexuality.

ie: there is nothing saying 100% for certain that homosexuality is ok or wrong.

Yes, there is something. It's called the Catholic Church.

[Tweety]

It has begun!!! Praise Jesus!

May God bless each and every one of the devoted who are gathered around our beloved Holy Father.

Australia has been blessed! I am so proud to be Catholic and Australian.

For the middle of winter, we have been blessed with the most beautiful and sunny day. The harbour is ALIVE!!!!! It is more like spring/summer here than winter... Oh how God is good!

WYD08 is the best thing to ever happen to Australia.

I thank all the youth for coming to our land downunder.

They are so excited..... I am so excited.....

[Elric]

I am not going to "debate" this with you anymore, aside from the recent protests of you not agreeing with the law, its the same old thing involving me correcting the things that you claim that I stated and asking you not to put words into my mouth. There is no point continuing especally when you are going to accuse me of stating things and making accusations that I didnt do.

Originally Posted by Eden

Firstly, I'm not a "boy" or male and secondly, you are have welcomed the title since you asserted earlier that this "special" treatment has something to do with Catholicism.

Obviously you have no idea of the story or saying about the boy who cried wolf, otherwise you would have not made such a pointless comment about what I stated (which had nothing to do with your gender or assumptions of it). Here is a link about it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

Your second point is meaningless and simply re-enforces the boy who cried wolf comment. Where exactly did I make these "anti-catholic" statements that you claim that I have made?

I wasn't "digging up dirt". I participated in that thread and I remember you.

With comments like this:

I've read your previous posts advocating homosexuality. Ax to grind?

That does sound a bit dishonest (I am still trying to figure out why exactly you would bring that up in the first place, since it is not relevent to the topic).

Yes, there is something. It's called the Catholic Church.

Let me make this as plain as possible, there is nothing in the bible saying 100% for certain that homosexuality is ok or wrong.

There really is nothing further to discuss with you and your actions have left a foul taste in my mouth.

Good day sir.

[Eden]

Originally Posted by Elric

I am not going to "debate" this with you anymore, aside from the recent protests of you not agreeing with the law, its the same old thing involving me correcting the things that you claim that I stated and asking you not to put words into my mouth. There is no point continuing especally when you are going to accuse me of stating things and making accusations that I didnt do.

Recent? Neither near, nor far in the realm of time or space did I ever say I supported the law. And just read through your comments again to see that you said no special laws were put in place for the Olympics and APEC and that the "special treatment" (hitherto proven false) for WYD "had something to do with Catholicism".

It's in your own words. Right here. On this thread.

Obviously you have no idea of the story or saying about the boy who cried wolf, otherwise you would have not made such a pointless comment about what I stated (which had nothing to do with your gender or assumptions of it). Here is a link about it for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

Every child learns about the story of the boy who cried wolf. I think one would have to be living in a cave not to know it. It had no relevance to my comments, so I found it humorous to dismiss it by pointing out that I'm not a "boy" (nor even male). The "boy who cried wolf" was a child learning a lesson about the adult world. Hardly needed by me, thank you. And not in the least bit relevant since your comments were anti-Catholic.

Your second point is meaningless and simply re-enforces the boy who cried wolf comment. Where exactly did I make these "anti-catholic" statements that you claim that I have made?

I have provided it for you. You claimed the Catholic Church was getting "special treatment" and said the laws proposed to take away rights to freedom of speech, against striking and to move the homeless had something to do with Catholicism.

Elric post #8

Originally Posted by Elric

Yet WYD is being singled out as deserving special treatment and you seem to be suggesting that you are ok with that.

I have proven this false by showing that the Olympics and APEC had similar laws restricting freedoms enacted.

Elric post #11

Originally Posted by Elric

Because their rights are being taken away because of a catholic church event. It is quite clear.

You said their rights were being taken away "because of a CATHOLIC CHURCH event." That's what you said! A CATHOLIC CHURCH EVENT. Your accusation that rights to protest were being restricted because the event is Catholic is not only false but ridiculous!!! I have proven your statement false repeatedly by showing the facts: the homeless were moved for the Olympics and protesting was restricted during both the Olympics and APEC. You are wrong. And to claim that because the event is Catholic, rights are being restricted is a lie. This is an issue of restricted rights by the NSW gov't, a pattern that can easily be researched online, and has nothing to do with the event "being Catholic". I have also shown that such accusations against the event are false, because no other host nation has had such laws for WYD. For the Catholicity of the event to be the issue, we would have seen this law across the board at every WYD in every nation for 23 years. If we put all of the evidence on the board and analyze it, we can see that the Catholic Church is not the one who conceived of these laws, it was the NSW gov't. The only reason I can see that someone would not acknowledge the clear party responsible, is if that person has a bias against one of the parties. In this case, the Catholic Church.

With comments like this:

I've read your previous posts advocating homosexuality. Ax to grind?

That does sound a bit dishonest (I am still trying to figure out why exactly you would bring that up in the first place, since it is not relevent to the topic).

It's relevant because some of the protesters who announced they will be participating in harassing Catholic youths are homosexuals:

"Police investigate WYD queer kiss-in":

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...04/2294284.htm

"Gay Catholics to protest against pope on Sydney's World Youth Day"

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...le_1414045.php

Since I remember you defending homosexuality on that thread, I drew the conclusion that you are here, and feel so emotionally involved in the laws of NSW, because you support one or more of the groups protesting at WYD. I would say it's not unreasonable to conclude that the emotional issue is homosexuality, based on my memory of you on the Scripture & Homosexuality thread. Now, you can say you are outraged at the thought of freedom of expression being restricted. But if that were so, you would have been outraged that similar laws were enacted for the Olympics. The reality is, you didn't even know about the laws for the Olympics! So, I concluded that you have a personal investment in the protests that are planned for the WYD week and came here to express that outrage and blame the Catholic Church for the fact that laws were proposed to restrict such protests.

Let me make this as plain as possible, there is nothing in the bible saying 100% for certain that homosexuality is ok or wrong.

The Bible is not yours to interpret. The Catholic Church was given the authority by Jesus Christ to teach the Word. The Bible is a Catholic document, entrusted to the Church through the Holy Spirit. It was Catholic bishops who set the Canon of the Bible at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo and it's Catholic bishops who have the exclusive authority to interpret what it means. The Catholic Church has spoken, homosexual behavior is 100% wrong. Where did you get the idea that you have the authority to interpret the Bible?

There really is nothing further to discuss with you and your actions have left a foul taste in my mouth.

Good to hear. Hopefully, the celebration of the future of the Church, of young Catholics at WYD, can proceed without your negative agenda being interjected.

Good day sir.

That's "Madam" to you.