MARCHES, MEETINGS New City By-Law Imposes Control

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32354, 21 July 1970, Page 16

MARCHES, MEETINGS New City By-Law Imposes Control

A new by-law which will restrict the right of persons to hold demonstrations, meetings and marches in public places without getting consent from the Council was passed at a special meeting of the City Council last evening.

The by-law also specifically names the riverbank opposite the Southern Military District Headquarters as a speakers’ comer where persons may meet and speak without prior consent.

It names Cranmer, Latimer and Victoria Squares as places specified for meetings demonstrations, and so on, authorised by the council. The council carried the motion adopting the by-law on voices, only two or three voting against it The by-law will forbid any person taking part in assembly, or congregation so conducting himself “in any public place as to unreasonably impede the traffic or incommode any person passing thereon”-ovlthout prior written consent

The by-law similar? restricts any person from taking part tn any publie procession other than a funeral. But the restriction Will not apply to the riverbank along Cambridge Terrace between Cashel and Hereford Streets, to be used as a “speakers* corner," provided the meeting

is for a lawful purpose, and does not obstruct anyone. Manner Described The by-law Says that no person “shall act in a mannei which endangers, »r annoys or causes unecessary inconvenience to any person lawfully using a public place, or loiter, encumber or obstruct a public place to endanger or unreasonably annoy or disturb others lawfully on it” Cr P. N. Blaxall said he was sorry it had been thought necessary to put such a bylaw before the council. The youth of the world was tn protest, but in Christchurch the protestors had not turned to violence.

“Let us not alienate ourselves from youth by such measures. At the moment it is youth. But suppose we put another road through the park —heaven forbid—great bodies of older citizens would want to march, and could not unless they had a permit,” he said. He proposed that the bylaw be limited to permits for marching through the streets in the centre of the city. He moved that the by-law bo referred back to toe by-law committee.

Cr N. G. Bickering asked if the demonstrators who marched last Friday evening should have had a permit. The Deputy-Mayor (Or H. R Smith): Yes, they should have had one. Cr Pickering: I see; under this by-law they could be prosecuted for not having one. He seconded the motion that the bydaw be referred back to the committee. He said the council should toll the Civil Liberties Council, and others about its proposal, and consult them. Effect Of Diversion Cr R. H. Stillwell said that if toe marchers were diverted

■ from toe main street to back i ones, the protest would not t have any effect at all. * He agreed with Cr Blaxall t that all lines of communicas tion with youth must be kept i open, said Cr Dunbar, * The Deputy Mayor (Cr H i P. Smith), in the chair, said there was no suggestion that ■ toe Salvation Army should be : stopped from marching i through too Square. i Cr Smith said that in his - time he did not think toe i council had ever refused a permit for a meeting. When toe traffic superintendent said It was not possible for a march in a busy street on a Friday night, the council committee had agreed with his view. “With tolerance, with indulgence, there must be a point where wo must have control. The permit is toe control, and it must be exercised with tolerance and reasonableness, not only towards the marchers or protestors but also to all other eitirea*,” Cr Smith said. He said that a well-known man tn toe city, holding a responsible job, not a longhaired youth, had told a committee that “we will march when we like and where we . like—and to hell with the , Government,” Cr Smith ; added. I Court’s Decision Cr R. H. Stewaat said toe i authorities were entitled to * know when a march or a i demonstration was to be held, i therefore he was m favour of toe by4aw. •Cr E. B. E. Tayler said the | purpose of toe by-iaw was for the “good rule and governl ment” of the city. He said citizens could go freely at > any time they liked to “speakers’ comet.” He said that toe final decision whether toe by-law was reasonable lay With the Magistrate’s Court, if it was held not reasonable it could not be enforced.