I haven’t been charged with attempted Disturbing Religious Worship. I haven’t been charged with Offensive behavour or been charged for resisting arrest. The Prosecution are trying to prove disturbing religious worship without having a disturbed worshipper complainant.
The prosecution can’t convict somebody on behalf of nobody. My question to the prosecution is where is the disturbed party? Who is the complainant?
The incident occurred prior to the event, the incident lasted for 30 seconds and my alleged attempts to return to the area were prevented by Officer Kelly’s good policing. Kelly claimed he was worried that the Muslims would lynch me. Kelly also made a claim that I had been using the megaphone while climbing back up the stairs but I believe according to the clear video and audio evidence I did not. I believe Mr Kelly may have been mistaken as it has been 2 years since the incident.
Under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights section 14
It states: Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
(1) Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including—
(a) the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice; and
(b) the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private.
(2) A person must not be coerced or restrained in a way that limits his or her freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.
I am a Christian and I am protected by the Charter, This is not something I prepared recently I brought this section up to Prosecutor Ms Reid back in February 2020 at the first hearing where she claimed demonstration wasn’t part of this section. I corrected her. Since then the current prosecutor has submitted a cited case that covers political expression but doesn’t cover section 14.
Federation Square according to Pedro Gallo’s testimony is a public space. I have every right to demonstrate my religious beliefs through teaching the public that Mohamood was a false prophet.
This charge is being used in a bad way and bad cases lead to bad laws.
If I was to be found guilty under this evidence it would set a bad precedent as everyone could claim protection of their group of religious protestors or religious groups to dominate the public space, they would be free from criticism, from objections or countering religions. God help us if two different religious groups meet in the same place.
It’s my argument that prior to 1pm on the 12th of April, 2019 it was not a group of persons worshipping as a congregation but an individual prayer which was not disturbed according to the evidence.
So where can these people worship religiously without being disturbed in a public space as a public space is, public. I have an interesting idea which I believe a lot of religious organisations would support - we should build something for these religious organisations to protect their worship from criticism. I don’t know if it’s been invented yet but build a space for them, like a building or closed area. We could call it a house of worship even. To avoid issues such as this case in the future somebody should really look into this.
In closing,
There would be another issue I believe as the Disturbing Religious worship Charge is very simplistic and divine worship hasn’t been legally defined to my reading.
It needs to be mentioned that the Charge of Disturbing Religious Worship of CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 207 was derived from the Tolerance Act of 1688.
The arguments related to the originality of the charge and the intended purpose of Disturbing Religious Worship and the Toleration act need to be argued in a higher court as Islam was not intended to be protected under this law as it offends the Christian Religion.
The prosecution can’t convict somebody on behalf of nobody. My question to the prosecution is where is the disturbed party? Who is the complainant?
The incident occurred prior to the event, the incident lasted for 30 seconds and my alleged attempts to return to the area were prevented by Officer Kelly’s good policing. Kelly claimed he was worried that the Muslims would lynch me. Kelly also made a claim that I had been using the megaphone while climbing back up the stairs but I believe according to the clear video and audio evidence I did not. I believe Mr Kelly may have been mistaken as it has been 2 years since the incident.
Under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights section 14
It states: Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
(1) Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including—
(a) the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice; and
(b) the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private.
(2) A person must not be coerced or restrained in a way that limits his or her freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.
I am a Christian and I am protected by the Charter, This is not something I prepared recently I brought this section up to Prosecutor Ms Reid back in February 2020 at the first hearing where she claimed demonstration wasn’t part of this section. I corrected her. Since then the current prosecutor has submitted a cited case that covers political expression but doesn’t cover section 14.
Federation Square according to Pedro Gallo’s testimony is a public space. I have every right to demonstrate my religious beliefs through teaching the public that Mohamood was a false prophet.
This charge is being used in a bad way and bad cases lead to bad laws.
If I was to be found guilty under this evidence it would set a bad precedent as everyone could claim protection of their group of religious protestors or religious groups to dominate the public space, they would be free from criticism, from objections or countering religions. God help us if two different religious groups meet in the same place.
It’s my argument that prior to 1pm on the 12th of April, 2019 it was not a group of persons worshipping as a congregation but an individual prayer which was not disturbed according to the evidence.
So where can these people worship religiously without being disturbed in a public space as a public space is, public. I have an interesting idea which I believe a lot of religious organisations would support - we should build something for these religious organisations to protect their worship from criticism. I don’t know if it’s been invented yet but build a space for them, like a building or closed area. We could call it a house of worship even. To avoid issues such as this case in the future somebody should really look into this.
In closing,
There would be another issue I believe as the Disturbing Religious worship Charge is very simplistic and divine worship hasn’t been legally defined to my reading.
It needs to be mentioned that the Charge of Disturbing Religious Worship of CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 207 was derived from the Tolerance Act of 1688.
The arguments related to the originality of the charge and the intended purpose of Disturbing Religious Worship and the Toleration act need to be argued in a higher court as Islam was not intended to be protected under this law as it offends the Christian Religion.