Australian 'no-go' zones

[rainbow]

You think the police have the right to shut you up in advance if they think that what you say may cause someone else to get so pissed off they are going to attack you.

Drivel. That isn't what I said.

Read what I say and argue against what I actually say.

That is how debate works.

[rainbow]

'Answer the question'.
lol

Stop dodging the question.

Stop dodging the question by asking inane irrelevant questions.

I don't have any questions to answer, you do.

We'll just take your failure to answer as an admission that your argument has crashed and burnt.


Yet again

You don't seem to understand what 'no-go' zones are, and are focused on whatabboutism.

Don't talk crap. Answer my question.

[Forty Two]

I don't think those sort of laws apply in Australia. I could be wrong, though.

We do have provisions to order people to keep their distance from other people, based purely on their past behaviour, though. In my opinion Lauren Southern qualifies at least since her participation in the attempted blockade of a rescue vessel in Sicily.

Don't the "keep your distance" laws involve getting a court order?

And, blockade? Really? Man the media just fucking lies. There was no blockade. She was in a little boat that fit like 2 to 4 people and had a video camera. Bullshit.

Who mentioned a blockade? The declared intent was to block the Aquarius from leaving Sicily and stop it from rescuing refugees who fled the Syrian war in overloaded rubber duckies. Lauren Southern's record makes her a person with "character of concern".

Only if you take sides in the politics. And, the Aquarius was not a rubber ducky. It was a ship. And, you assume as true that which is not proven - the intent and motives of the people who are sometimes described as "trafficking" in illegal immigrants.

Federal Australian law can prevent potential visitors from entering Australia on the grounds of being a person with "character of concern". No actual crime need have been committed. It is sufficient reason "in the event that the non‑citizen were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a significant risk that the non‑citizen would: represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of that community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to that community or segment, or in any other way." Keywords are "concern", "risk" and "disruptive". All of them apply to Southern.

They do? HOw so? What risk? What danger? Be specific.

I have no doubt the Ozzie law says what you say it says.

I have not had the time to search the New South Wales code, but I am pretty sure that it - and the laws of all other Australian states and territories - have similar provisions. And no, blocking someone from going somewhere does not always necessitate a court order anyway. Police do keep people apart when there is a perceived risk of trouble between them.

Maybe at the time of an encounter. But, do cops have the right to issue orders that say "you can't go within X meters of so-and-so?" I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's hard to contemplate that as being reasonable in a liberal democracy.

The lack of a court order or actual violence being currently engaged does not forbid them from doing so. Not in Australia, not in the USA, not in most other countries.

In the USA it does -- the notion that a cop can just order you to "stay away" from someone is rather vague. What do they do there in Oz? Is there a ticket issued with the instructions? Do they write something up?

I understand that if there is an altercation or argument and the cops are responding, then on the scene they might tell John to stay over there or to get away until the matter is hashed out. But, does Ozzie law go beyond that?

For example, your precious freedom of movement is impinged on every time a MAGA mob and a group of people opposing them get within a stone's throw of each other.

I would think freedom of movement is precious to everyone. But if it's not to you, then that's your value. But my freedom of movement is not impinged when a MAGA mob and mob opposing them get within a stone's throw of each other. They can move where they want. Not sure how that effect my freedom. Each individual has the same freedom. We can't physically occupy the same space, of course, but that's the way it goes. Reality exists.

I would not describe Southern a MAGA mob as she entered Haldon Street in Lakemba, but she was clearly intent on being "disruptive to that community or segment". She has a record of disruption in regard to Muslims. The cop was in his right to stop her from walking down the street and to forbid her to continue on to the Lakemba mosque.

Disruptive by doing what? Be specific. It may well be disruptive to Muslims if she hands out "Allah is trans" or "Allah is gay" leaflets. But, that's their problem, not hers. And, there is nothing wrong with "being disrpuptive" is there? Do you think that when antifa groups go places with the "intent to disrupt that community or segment" they don't have a right to go there and do that? Doesn't it depend on what they're going to do? If they're going to go there and say that Trump supporters suck and scream at the fascists they think they see - isn't that their right?

s

That said, there is of course a certain irony involved when a liar who sets out to prove that Lakemba is an Islamic no go area - which it is not - is prevented from going into its main street and going anywhere near its mosque.

Indeed, quite ironic. And, I don't use the term "no go area," because what happens is that both "sides" define that differently, and then claim the other side is wrong.

Bottom line - religious dogma and sensibilities ought not mean that atheists, agnostics, antitheists, etc. have no right to go there and insult the religious people's religion and deity(ies). And, that same right applies to adherents to other religions. If the religious people coming out of a Mosque or Church are pissed off that someone else says their deity is gay or trans - that's tough titty said the kitty. Or, it should be.

Let me repeat that I can assure you from personal experience that it is nowhere near a no go area. I have entered Lakemba on a daily basis for ten years, or more. The people there are indeed overwhelmingly Muslim, and most of those Muslims arrived from Lebanon and Syria during times of war in their previous homelands. On average their behaviour is indistinguishable from the the average behaviour of Caucasians in surrounding suburbs. Southern is a liar and a wind-up merchant. Watch her clip with the sound muted and see if you find anything she filmed that hints at the area being a no go area. You'll be reminded of this clip I linked to twice before:

It's not a question of whether she's a liar or whether you think she's wrong. That's a matter for the public square and public debate, not the police. IMO. At least, that's the way it is most of the time in most civilized countries, including Oz. For some reason, these days when it comes to the Musselmen community, there is a different standard applied.

Here in the US, for example, the law cannot stop the Westboro Baptist Church idiots from protesting in public spaces and saying "god hates fags" and that kind of thing, even if those protests are near other churches and the like. Dawkins would be allowed to park his bus right across the street from churches. Their "intent to disrupt" wouldn't matter.

[Hermit]

We do have laws for people to keep their distance from other people, based purely on their past behaviour, and so do you in the United States. The lack of a court order or actual violence being currently engaged does not forbid them from doing so. Not in Australia, not in the USA, not in most other countries. For example, your precious freedom of movement is impinged on every time a MAGA mob and a group of people opposing them get within a stone's throw of each other.

Lauren Southern qualifies at least since her participation in the attempted blockade of a rescue vessel in Sicily. She has a record of disruption in regard to Muslims. The cop was in his right to stop her from walking down the street and to forbid her to continue on to the Lakemba mosque. EoS

[laklak]

Would Australian law prohibit anti-abortion protesters at medical facilities?

[Hermit]

Would Australian law prohibit anti-abortion protesters at medical facilities?

Those laws are a state rather than a federal matter. Protesters who intimidate, harass or film people within 50 to 150 metres of clinics or hospitals that provide terminations will face punishments including jail time in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory. South Australia and Western Australia have no such laws just yet, but pending the decision on a High Court challenge they each may have them in the near future too. The respective health ministers of those two states have spoken out in favour of introducing them.

The Catholic Archbishop Fisher said worshippers were "harassed and abused" every year by protesters outside St Mary's Cathedral during mass for the Day of the Unborn child, and commented that a "bubble zone" had not been put in place to protect churches. In my opinion religious people are entitled to the very same protection against intimidation, harassment and filming. An electrified fence topped by razor wire and no gates that might inadvertently let protesters anywhere near the congregations should be built at a distance of no less than 50 metres around all mosques, churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship to ensure their safety.

[pErvinalia]

Would Australian law prohibit anti-abortion protesters at medical facilities?

Before the recent laws prohibiting them in some states from impinging upon medical facilities it was perfectly fine for them to harass women seeking treatment or advice. Which makes me dubious of Hermit's claim that the cops can just order people not to be somewhere because they might cause trouble. Before the recent laws these protesters regularly harassed women seeking treatment or advice.

[rainbow]

Would Australian law prohibit anti-abortion protesters at medical facilities?

I don't see any reason why they should. Peaceful protests are allowed in most of the civilised world. Where the protesters block free movement, intimidate and threaten violence - they are guilty of breaking other laws.
It isn't the protest, it is how it is conducted.

[pErvinalia]

In a number of states they are banned from an area within a couple of hundred metres of a clinic. These laws had to be introduced as the pro-lifers were offensive cunts who were harassing women seeking treatment and advice.

[NineBerry]

I would argue that Ms. Southern's right to free speech was undermined by being prevented from being in a public space and passing out leaflets advocating LGBT rights. Allah-is-Gay-Leaflet-640x480.png

The leaflets are not advocating LGBT rights. Saying that Allah is part of our community sheds a very bad light on our community. Allah is a very bad guy. It's like saying that Kevin Spacey is gay.

[Forty Two]

I would argue that Ms. Southern's right to free speech was undermined by being prevented from being in a public space and passing out leaflets advocating LGBT rights. Allah-is-Gay-Leaflet-640x480.png

The leaflets are not advocating LGBT rights. Saying that Allah is part of our community sheds a very bad light on our community. Allah is a very bad guy. It's like saying that Kevin Spacey is gay.

It doesn't matter what the leaflets are advocating. That's the point. And, you think they're not advocating LGBT rights. Others are of a different view. Others are trying to make a different point altogether, which they believe is just as important.

Some bad buys are gay and some are LGBT, IMO. They tend to be human, just like everyone else, and they tend to have assholes in their midst, too.

Handing out leaflets saying "Allah is a very bad guy" would be fine too. A good place to hand them out is in front of a Mosque. Like, when you're telling the Catholic Church to stop buggering children, a good place to do it is near a Catholic Church. Just like a good place to protest ExxonMobil is outside their corporate headquarters.

[NineBerry]

And they say Germans have no sense of humour

[Forty Two]

We do have laws for people to keep their distance from other people, based purely on their past behaviour, and so do you in the United States.

Not without a court ordered injunction, based on evidence in court, and the evidence must show conduct, not mere voicing of opinions.

The lack of a court order or actual violence being currently engaged does not forbid them from doing so.

In the US it sure does. In the US it's a very high standard. You need to show repeat violence, domestic violence, that kind of thing, including following or harassment - and expressions of opinion are not harassment.

Not in Australia, not in the USA, not in most other countries. For example, your precious freedom of movement is impinged on every time a MAGA mob and a group of people opposing them get within a stone's throw of each other.

Nonsense. Generally speaking, a MAGA mob and a mob of people opposing them are free to be near each other. How is my freedom of movement impinged?

Lauren Southern qualifies at least since her participation in the attempted blockade of a rescue vessel in Sicily. She has a record of disruption in regard to Muslims. The cop was in his right to stop her from walking down the street and to forbid her to continue on to the Lakemba mosque. EoS

Qualifies for what? What statute/law are you referring to?

Where was it established that she has a record of disruption? On the news? That's not admissible evidence. That's why these things require court hearings and orders (in the US - if Oz is different, you'll point us to the law in question and perhaps an example case).

In the US, the cop would not be in his right to stop her from walking down the street and forbid her to continue on to the Lakemba Mosque. No way. She wouldn't even be legally obligated to stop an listen to him. The cop could only legally stop her if he had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring. Reasonable suspicion is a set of demonstrable factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. Not that she "disrupted" in the past. That criminal activity was occurring. He could then stop her, and identify her and frisk her. If no evidence is found, he must let her proceed - even to the mosque.

[Hermit]

Not in Australia, not in the USA, not in most other countries. For example, your precious freedom of movement is impinged on every time a MAGA mob and a group of people opposing them get within a stone's throw of each other.

Nonsense. Generally speaking, a MAGA mob and a mob of people opposing them are free to be near each other. How is my freedom of movement impinged?

Phoenix, AZ, 23rd Aug 2017 "The demonstrations were largely peaceful as police kept the protesters and Trump supporters on opposite sides of the street behind barricades and a line of officers."

Murfreesboro, TN, 28th Oct 2017 "Authorities in Shelbyville and Murfreesboro kept white nationalists and counterprotesters separated."

Kansas City, KS, 24th Jul 2018 "Later in the day, after Trump had left Kansas City, perhaps twice that many gathered at a second rally at 12th and Central streets. Some at the morning rally shouted expletives; some ridiculed Trump for his relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Kansas City police officers kept the protesters out of the street..."

Google brings up ten results per page. The above are three of them from page one when I searched for links to the topic of police infringing the movement the right of movement without requiring a crime to have been committed. I am confident many more can be found.

Make no mistake, I am not opposed to their action. After all, according to The American System of Criminal Justice, by George F. Cole and Christopher E. Smith, 2004, 10th edition, Wadsworth/Thomson, order maintenance, which the authors say "is the broad mandate to keep the peace or otherwise prevent behaviors which might disturb others" and about which they note "police are usually called-on to "handle" these situations with discretion, rather than deal with them as strict violations of law", is the first of the "three primary police agency functions", law enforcement being the second and service the third.

[Forty Two]

Not in Australia, not in the USA, not in most other countries. For example, your precious freedom of movement is impinged on every time a MAGA mob and a group of people opposing them get within a stone's throw of each other.

Nonsense. Generally speaking, a MAGA mob and a mob of people opposing them are free to be near each other. How is my freedom of movement impinged?

Phoenix, AZ, 23rd Aug 2017 "The demonstrations were largely peaceful as police kept the protesters and Trump supporters on opposite sides of the street behind barricades and a line of officers."

Oh, sure - I misunderstood you - yes, police have the right to separate protest groups. Note, both groups are allowed to be there. The police can only do that which keeps hecklers away from a permitted group. Police may only order a group to leave an area if that group is disorderly - that's not "mere presence" - there has to be behavior (non speech) which is disorderly.

Murfreesboro, TN, 28th Oct 2017 "Authorities in Shelbyville and Murfreesboro kept white nationalists and counterprotesters separated."

Yes, as noted above, opposing groups can be separated. They're not being told to leave, or that they can't go somewhere, unless they do something then to be disorderly. Nothing is based on their past conduct.

Kansas City, KS, 24th Jul 2018 "Later in the day, after Trump had left Kansas City, perhaps twice that many gathered at a second rally at 12th and Central streets. Some at the morning rally shouted expletives; some ridiculed Trump for his relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Kansas City police officers kept the protesters out of the street..."

Yes ,free speech is not the right to block the street. Sit ins, and blocking entrances and exitways, that kind of thing, blocking the sidewalk, blocking the street - all that is unprotected, because it isn't speech. That's a far cry from a person not being allowed to walk past a mosque and hand out "Allah is gay" leaflets, isn't it?

Google brings up ten results per page. The above are three of them from page one when I searched for links to the topic of police infringing the movement the right of movement without requiring a crime to have been committed. I am confident many more can be found.

Many more examples of what? Cops being permitted to tell someone they can't go to a neighborhood and hand out leaflets, because of their record of disruption? Please, by all means, find such examples.

Make no mistake, I am not opposed to their action. After all, according to The American System of Criminal Justice, by George F. Cole and Christopher E. Smith, 2004, 10th edition, Wadsworth/Thomson, order maintenance, which the authors say "is the broad mandate to keep the peace or otherwise prevent behaviors which might disturb others" and about which they note "police are usually called-on to "handle" these situations with discretion, rather than deal with them as strict violations of law", is the first of the "three primary police agency functions", law enforcement being the second and service the third.

Behaviors. Not speech. If Nazis or Antifa or Communists or Black Nationalists or White Nationalists, or Rebel Media personnel with "Allah is Gay Leaflets" want to walk by mosques, they are free to do so. The content of the message, or the reaction of the public to them, is not a breach of the peace. If a mob comes by the Rebel Media personnel with their leaflets and starts to threaten them or menace them, then the police's job is to keep the groups separate so both can speak. They are not allowed to pick one or the other group and send them away.