KEY POINTS:
During Dick Hubbard's mayoralty, the Auckland City Council decided that the Boobs on Bikes parade down Queen St was bad for the city's image. It wanted to ban the event under a bylaw that gave it the power to refuse a permit if it believed there were "objectively justifiable and reasonable grounds".
Council officers saw no such grounds and said a new bylaw would have to be passed. Now, another Mayor, John Banks, wants to stop the parade, saying it exploits women. Duly, a new bylaw has appeared. Predictably, it creates only further problems, and will serve merely to provide invaluable publicity for Steve Crow's next parade of bare-breasted women.
The new bylaw declares the council can turn down a permit for an event if it "reasonably believes there is any other objectively justifiable and reasonable grounds for declining consent, for example that the event will be or is likely to be offensive".
It does not define the word "offensive", or attempt to align it to prevailing public taste. It is, therefore, hostage to all manner of interpretation and to litigation. Already, Mr Crow is on his favourite hobby-horse, claiming the bylaw contravenes the freedom of expression enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act.
He might also have added that it could be seized upon by future councils to ban events far removed in character and intent from those the present administration had in mind.
In reality, councils have little recourse other than a bylaw such as this. But they step into quicksand when they try to rule on taste. More often than not, they sink.
Auckland City councillors would, in fact, do well to cast an eye at the police, who seem to take a more relaxed view. Or at their own officials, one of whom has advised Mr Crow that council officers were likely to recommend permitting the parade. The councillors should also recognise that any decision by them banning the parade using the highly subjective "offensive" criteria will be much easier in the making than the rationalising.
Many people do find such displays indecent and offensive. They have the right to enjoy the use of public places without topless women suddenly being thrust before them. But this must be balanced by the right to freedom of expression and the right to enjoy a frivolous occasion.
The obvious reference point is the context of the event. The main objective of the Boobs on Bikes parade is to promote an erotica expo. Somewhat oddly, tens of thousands flock to see it, and it garners much advance publicity.
Those offended might struggle to convince others they were taken unawares. Mr Banks has already acknowledged the difficulties of definition. But he and Citizens and Ratepayers councillors voted down a City Vision amendment that would have injected specificity and objectivity.
This defined "offensive" to include events with an "R-rated or an age-restricted commercial activity involving full or partial nudity and/or the simulation of sexual activity" within normal business hours on a pedestrian thoroughfare.
It would, however, have placed decision-making on the likes of the Boobs on Bikes parade in the hands of council staff. The majority of councillors want to reserve that for themselves.
They are missing the bigger picture. Any regulatory response would introduce a degree of restriction out of keeping with the parade's potential for harm.
Attempting to act as a judge and arbiter of public taste is a fruitless exercise.
The council's best policy would be to butt out. In the natural course of events, Mr Crow's parade will soon lose both its attraction and its audience.
