Whatever you do, don’t annoy the youth
July 3, 2008, 6:26 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Free Expression and World Youth Day in Australia
A big with the problem with the law under the US framework would be that its vagueness interferes with legitimate rights to freedom of expression.
If I were a police officer in Sydney, however, the last thing I’d be looking forward to was having to watch out for so many very young people a half a world away from home.
HT: Jim Martin, SJ
According to the article, “no additional or ‘APEC-like’ police powers have been granted under the World Youth Day regulations”.
The Australian government is simply applying pre-existing rules and regulations that facilitte a harmonious and peaceful co-existence.
The regulations do not contradict Catholic social teaching. Instead of spending energy on criticizing the Australian gov’t for the process by which it is choosing to ensure a safe stay for the youth (which just hurts his credibility as the arguement is weak), Fr. Brennan should be offering to facilitate discussion on CST and what they youth can concretely do in their communities to assist in constructive social change in harmony with Catholic social teaching.
BTW, I feel the same way about protesting the Beijing Olympics. I think China should be criticized and that we should revist trade policy. However, there is a time and a place for all things (cf Ecclesiastes)
The protests efforts sound a good deal more concerted than the We Are Church condom-friendly media campaign that was evident in Cologne: buttons and brochures, posters in the train stations, tv ads. (There may have been other protests, but they would have been overwhelmed by the enormous crowds.)
The article on Fr. Brennan says: “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.”
That last group is intersting, I think. I remember when civil libertarians used to fight for freedom of religion, including its public expressions.
In any case, I don’t think the crackdown is necessary. The kids at wyd have been fundraising for two years with their youth group. Their commitment levels are likely to be very high.
I am particularly sensitive to this issue. In Canada, at the beginning of the Iraq war, travelling hockey teams of kids from the USA were loudlly booed when introduced.
I also heard at the Democratic convention, the Boy Scouts were booed due to decision of the leadership.
These images and experiences have a lasting impact. Kids, who are innocent of all these issues, deserve better. It is not appropriate to use every single public and popular venue as a political and ideological platform.
Sounds like the proposed regulations are a big fiasco that will make the anti-Catholics even more obnoxious than they were before. It would be a shame if fully-fledged fights break out as a result, which, given the youth of all parties involved is highly likely.
Still, there is a place for time, place, and manner restrictions for WYD protests. At the papal mass in DC, the mass-goers literally had to run a gauntlet of obnoxious fundamentalist anti-Catholic protestors in order to enter Nationals Park – something that should not have been permitted to happen. You can find the videos on youtube.
Everyone knows this is a “toot-his-horn” Cardinal Pell Event.
The State is kowtowing to this hierarch, and people know it.
Progressive Catholics and non-Catholics have good reason to be upset with these measures against free speech and assembly!
Okay, leave aside the First Amendment here (which I brought up).
What sort of rules would you all have –not just for World Youth Day, but for World Atheist Day, Gay Pride Day, WICCA Day (witches) World Islam Day assemblies, and protests? Does content matter? Does the age of the mass of participants matter? And in a related question, under what conditions would you send your sixteen year old kid half a world away with a youth group leader you barely know? Remember, you’d probably have to give him/her a mastercard, so there are collateral consequences?
What makes sense?
I am (self) consciously aware that I am responding to a professor of law so be gentle with me as it is my first time (speaking to a professor of law)……
For starters I would say that participants have the right to enter designated areas free of harassment (meaning that if there are protesters those protesters should be cordoned off at some distance).
I would say that while at the meeting, in the designated areas, participants have the right to be able to listen without disruptive interruptions. Nor should they be subject to harassment (which already has a definition under the law and that should be interpreted as broadly as possible for law enforcement to apply. That is not to say charges but the threshold should be low and reasonable enough that they can remove them).
There should be a mechanism to remove people who are creating mischief (and again this definition exists under the law and can at least for the purposes of removal of people be interpreted broadly).
The content doesn’t matter. However, if the group is controversial or is engaging in controversial subjects that can reasonably be expected to provoke strong opposition (e.g. a group discussing the denial of the Holocaust publicly, or perhaps even gay pride in the early years not so much now – now Christians are in the position where any proclamation will provoke a response) the organizers should have access to the police to discuss security details within the legal parameters outlined above. I think that happened in Australia. It was done responsibly, legally and within the parameters of already established civil regulations intended to promote safety.
And in a related question, under what conditions would you send your sixteen year old kid half a world away with a youth group leader you barely know? Remember, you’d probably have to give him/her a mastercard, so there are collateral consequences?
Well… I hope that when my child reaches 15 they have sufficient maturity to require moderate degree of supervision. I would want to know who the youth leaders are, to meet them, to have a relationship with them. But yes, I would permit it.
Perhaps the greatest harm to a youth is that s/he is being manipulated with massive propaganda, funded with deep pockets, (note that six figure chalice) and solely designed to triumph the power and glory of Rome. The spiritual harm can be a lot worse.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/catholic-day-a-scandal/2008/07/05/1214951110473.html