Let's get this straight.
Valerie Morse who burnt a New Zealand Flag at an Anzac Day dawn service is not guilty of Disorderly Behaviour.
Originally she had been found guilty of this charge, the original district court judge ruling that such actions were offensive in the context of the Anzac Dawn Parade.
But the Supreme Court begs to differ. They ruled the District Court Judge had misunderstood the meaning of Offensive behaviour. The majority believing it had to be capable of "wounding feelings or arousing real anger, resentment disgust or outrage". Her actions didn't do that? You could have fooled me, but what would I know.
You tell me.
Valerie Morse who burnt a New Zealand Flag at an Anzac Day dawn service is not guilty of Disorderly Behaviour.
Originally she had been found guilty of this charge, the original district court judge ruling that such actions were offensive in the context of the Anzac Dawn Parade.
But the Supreme Court begs to differ. They ruled the District Court Judge had misunderstood the meaning of Offensive behaviour. The majority believing it had to be capable of "wounding feelings or arousing real anger, resentment disgust or outrage". Her actions didn't do that? You could have fooled me, but what would I know.
"Because unanimously of the view that the trial in the District Court proceeded on a wrong basis in law through failure to assess impact on public order, the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction," the judges said in a written statement to the media.What does "failure to assess impact on public order" mean? Does that mean that if the old diggers had rioted as a result of her actions she would have been guilty? And is the corollary that moonbat citizens can stick it to the socially responsible because they will only be guilty of disorderly behaviour if everyday citizens are provoked into reacting in an unsocial way?
You tell me.