The police don’t have to enforce every bit of legislation—but often they do, so expect them to , their job is to enforce government rules and they get a power trip doing it.
In the video “You Have No Freedom To Walk With a Jesus Sign – Police Called Again 29/05/2025,” a man is seen peacefully carrying a sign quoting a biblical verse (“Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life…”) in a public area next to the Sydney Opera House. Security approached him, claiming he was violating venue by-laws related to sign displays, though they didn't cite any specific rule. When police arrived, the man repeatedly asked them to name the law he was breaking, but they only referred vaguely to “a by-law.” Though he was silent and non-disruptive, he eventually left voluntarily without arrest or charge.
The mans a religious zealot but hes no genocidal zionist. Not withstanding he had conflicting arguments - he quoted his religious right under the constitution but also said he didnt recognise by-laws, that he wanted to be free and wasnt breaking any law. Leaving aside that no coloniser settler government writes law , they can only write legislation, lets look at the real issue here per video title (see end);
The regulation in question is almost certainly Sections 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(g) of the Sydney Opera House Trust By-law 2021, which prohibit unauthorised promotion or display of signs—religious, political, or commercial. The man argued his action was protected under Section 116 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits the Commonwealth from restricting the free exercise of religion. However, Section 116 only applies to federal laws—not to state legislation or venue-specific rules created by NSW statutory bodies like the Opera House Trust.
This reveals a troubling legal gap. While the Constitution is seen as the supreme law of the land, it does not override state-level restrictions on religious expression. In practice, this allows local by-laws to restrict peaceful public religious activity—even in public spaces—without triggering constitutional protection. Police, rather than defending higher democratic rights, tend to enforce the most immediate legal authority—often local by-laws—regardless of whether they conflict with broader civil liberties. This shows a fundamental weakness in Australian constitutional law: without a national Bill of Rights or a broader application of Section 116, basic freedoms can be quietly undermined.
However—before crying foul, context is everything.
In 1988, the Hawke Labor Government (under PM Bob Hawke and Attorney-General Lionel Bowen) called a referendum that included a proposal to extend Section 116 protections to the states. Held on 3 September 1988, the referendum offered four reforms meant to strengthen civil liberties—such as fair trials, just compensation, and religious freedom at the state level.
But the religious freedom proposal failed badly: only 30.5% of voters supported it, and no state voted Yes. Despite its progressive intent, the result reflected low public awareness, lack of bipartisan support, and widespread distrust of government motives. So while it’s easy to blame politicians for weak protections, the truth is that voters themselves rejected the chance to fix it.
MORAL: DON’T BLAME THE GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING , like THIS POOR SITUATION.
The U.S. Constitution, by contrast, contains strong, nationwide rights that apply across all 50 states—something Australia still lacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8I73TYtItU
You Have No Freedom To Walk With a Jesus Sign - Police Called Again 29may2023
Comments
Post a Comment