THE prominent Catholic priest and lawyer Frank Brennan has condemned new police powers for World Youth Day as a "dreadful interference" with civil liberties and contrary to Catholic teaching on human rights. The Catholic Church yesterday stood firm behind the State Government's laws restricting annoying and inconvenient public protests.
Father Brennan's attack came as groups that had had no plans to protest during the event vowed to do so in response to the new laws.
World Youth Day organisers said they had no objection to the open-ended nature of the regulations and confirmed the church had "discussed" with the Government the use of "standard laws" for the efficient running of the event.
Father Brennan said the Catholic document on human rights, Pacem In Terris, the 1963 encyclical of Pope John, said the responsibility of all authorities was "to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person".
"As an Australian Catholic lawyer, I am saddened that the state has seen fit to curtail civil liberties further in this instance than they have for other significant international events hosted in Sydney," he said.
"The rights of free speech and assembly should not be curtailed only because visiting pilgrims might be annoyed or inconvenienced in public places."
Dr John Sweeney, the co-ordinator of research at the Edmund Rice Centre, said Jesus Christ had paid the price for saying what he thought and the right to free speech needed defending.
"It would rather be like Jesus calling for a police escort on Palm Sunday. Obviously, he wouldn't and when Jesus went into Jerusalem people yelled out things the religious leaders in their time didn't like and they rebuked Jesus and he said he couldn't quieten his supporters."
The director of GetUp.org.au, Brett Solomon, did not rule out a campaign of protests or pranks among his 280,000 members to highlight what he called the "absurdity" of the rules, even if it meant fines of $5500. Many had not been angry before about the papal visit. "We could organise 1000 people in annoying or inconvenient T-shirts to people the route," he said.
The groups planning protests include anti-homophobia and pro-contraception organisations, atheists, agnostics, gay- and lesbian-friendly churches, victims of abuse by Catholic clergy, and civil libertarians.
Victims' groups who met police in Melbourne on Tuesday were told they would not be allowed to protest in 40 designated areas, and that they must apply seven days ahead to hold a demonstration and their banners and T-shirts would be vetted.
For the first time, the NSW Government confirmed that the clause had not featured at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit or the 2000 Olympics. But it produced a list of 15 pieces of law where the clause had been replicated permitting removal of people from venues including Parramatta Stadium and the Sydney Cricket Ground.
The powers were mostly limited to single venues and did not have the scope of the World Youth Day regulations, which covered more than 600 sites including parks, roads, stations and schools.
Faced with disquiet among Catholics, the chief operating officer of World Youth Day, Danny Casey, said the church was not asking for a redefinition of the laws. "Yes, we support free speech, but we are also concerned to make it clear that the event must run efficiently. We believe Sydney is behind us. All the research suggests they are. Everyone will be swept away with this wonderful wave of joy and enthusiasm."
Pam Krstic, from the Healesville Education and Awareness Raising group, which represents victims of abuse by Catholic clergy, said police had told her members they would not be allowed near sites including East Darling Harbour, Randwick Racecourse, Hyde Park and St Mary's Cathedral. "We're not anti-Catholic. We're anti-abuse," she said. "Who's not anti-abuse?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce