Archive for the 'Law' Category
Or Keystone Cops.
In NSW over the last weeks there have been well reported crackdowns on “Outlaw” biker gangs. What is interesting about all this is that these crackdowns have not occurred under the anti association laws that were passed through the state parliament without any debate. The crackdown has occurred under existing criminal law.
The police correctly have been raiding biker premises where drugs, firearms and other criminal activity has taken place. They have been pulling over armed bikers etc etc. Things they could have done at any time over the last five years.
So now we find our civil liberties have been taken away by the “saviours” in state parliament. The state opposition provided no opposition as usual and we find that we didn’t need these laws in the first place.
All we needed was for the NSW police to do their bloody job instead of crying out for more and greater powers.
If they knew these guys were manufacturing drugs and had piles of illegal firearms, and they knew not only what these guys were doing, but the addresses that the drug factories and weapons stockpiles were located at, what the fuck were they doing.
So the police for whatever reason turn a blind eye to the activities of these guys until it became so popular that all the Middle Eastern crime gangs that were targeted by police, morphed into “Biker Gangs” that were left alone by police, the whole thing hits a crisis point with bombings, bashings and shootings becoming the norm and everyone else in the state looses their Liberty as a consequence.
Remember these laws will be on the books for a long long time after the last Middle Eastern Hells Angel and his bomb making associates enter a retirement home.
A knee jerk reaction by a struggling and unpopular government to protect us from hobgoblins that they created by having the police allow these guys to get out of control and the concept of personal liberty is pushed even further from the grasp of the average Australian.
New South Wales. The unemployment capital of Australia and now an even less pleasant place to live. Last one out turn off the light methinks.
(Middle Eastern Bikers? believe it or not. Middle Eastern and Pacific Islander actually, many apparently don’t even ride bikes. A consequence of changing demographics, there are simply not enough Anglo Saxons left to recruit from.)
April 11 2009 | Law and Politics | No Comments »
The Outlaw
Most of you probably have never met a biker and to be honest the last time I was in the vicinity of them was quarter of a century ago in South Australia when the Barbarians were still a recent memory and the October long weekend if I remember correctly meant three days of madness at the Ponde music festival and another year to get the taste of diesel chook out of your mouth. (Recipe: Pile up twenty or so of chickens in take away foil bags, cover with diesel, add a match – sell to party goers with the munchies).
While you justifying the anti biker actions when people being arrested are apparently committing an illegal act on the higher end of the scale what are you going to do about this guy:
He is a stereotype biker. Rides a somewhat street legal Harley, wears a patch, owns some guns, smokes some weed. He runs a custom bike shop or works in one. A blokes bloke rather than a metrosexual he is an outlaw because he isn’t main stream.
In fact he is probably no different in many ways to the ferals up at Byron and thereabouts who perhaps eshew the guns and bikes, but also wear scruffy cloths, bath occasionally, have long hair, tatoos, partake in various substances and also have no time for the rat race. He has analogs in the surfer crowd who have long hair, scruffy clothes, partake in various substances, may own a surf shop and is somewhat less than reliable when the surfs up.
He doesn’t sell drugs – too much hassle, but probably knows where to get them. He, like our feral from Byron and surfer from Bells beach isn’t exactly law abiding when it comes to the state dictating his moral behavior, but he – like the junk yard dog isn’t dangerous unless provoked.
With a wife and a couple of kids you are going to lock him up for years because he talks to someone.
Have a serious serious think about this.
Do the ‘Bra boys and surfer associates down at Maroubra and our ferals up at Byron have anything to worry about. What happens when the religious right of the NSW Liberals control the state parliament.
Is it possible to control the organized crime aspects that have crept into the biker scene using existing laws? Have you talked to our gun toting, pot smoking, patched up custom bike shop owner to find out his opinion of the new breed, addidas wearing, thinks a knuckle head is his silly mate and a shovel head is a road worker wannabe in a patch who really should be hanging out at Hip Hop bars with his “Crew from da Hood”.
April 04 2009 | Law and Politics | No Comments »
Let’s See What Happens To Justice.
The topic of the Anti Biker legislation has really got under my collar.
As reported last night the NSW Premier Nathan Rees has has seen an opportunity to feed upon the fear created by the media on the biker gang issue and is racing to save us from the two wheeled marauders. It seems they have worked out that if they ban bikers all organized crime in NSW will come to a stop. So far no mention of going after street gangs and or the Islander, Middle Eastern, Chinese, Vietnamese or Korean variations on the Mafia.
While Mr Rees and his saviors race to save us there a few things they need to keep in mind, some of which South Australia fails abysmally on.
Proof of Guilt.
South Australia bypassed the whole unpleasant issue of having to prove that a group of people were guilty of an offense by making the offense that needs to be proven before a court only that someone has associated with the banned organization. Whether the organization is guilty of any crimes is only a matter for the state Attorney-General (Think District Attorney if you are from the US) as per the following from the act.
(4) The Attorney-General may, for the purposes of making a declaration under this
section, be satisfied that members of an organisation associate for the purpose of
organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity—
(a) whether or not all the members associate for that purpose or only some of the
members (provided that if the Attorney-General is satisfied that only some of
the members associate for that purpose, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that those members constitute a significant group within the organisation, either in terms of their numbers or in terms of their capacity to influence the organisation or its members); and
(b) whether or not members associate for the purpose of organising, planning,
facilitating, supporting or engaging in the same serious criminal activities or
different ones; and
(c) whether or not the members also associate for other purposes.
Evidence
And while we are discarding due process and normal standard of evidence check this out. Not only do we have people being punished by the state in a manner that bypasses the courts. The evidence used as a basis for this decision is not publicly available.
(1) If the Attorney-General makes a declaration or decision under this Part, the
Attorney-General is not required to provide any grounds or reasons for the declaration
or decision (other than to a person conducting a review under Part 6 if that person so requests).
(2) No information provided by the Commissioner to the Attorney-General for the
purposes of this Part may be disclosed to any person (except to a person conducting a
review under Part 6 or a person to whom the Commissioner authorises its disclosure)
if the information is classified by the Commissioner as criminal intelligence.
And the media was complaining about Guantanamo bay for what reasons exactly…
Guilt Through Association.
This one is nasty. Consider there was a war on and a soldier decided to undertake a reprisal against a non combatant that was known to associate with enemy forces. The cry for them to be bought up on war crimes coming from the same media that is currently screaming for anyone who associates with bikers to be imprisoned for five years would be deafening. The logic of “person A is a known criminal, person B associates with person A therefore person B is a criminal” defies belief in this day and age. I don’t know if the social engineers in their attempts to save us from ourselves have short memories of not, but freedom of association is fundamental to western law and society.
Geneva Convention
To understand the cultural values and to see one of the fundamental documents where these principals are put down lets have a look at an important line in the fourth Geneva convention section( 1) paragraph (d)
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Magna Carta
I know it is obsolete but lets have a look at section 39 the Magna Carta
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
Australian Constitution
Not a bloody lot I am afraid. As I have stated many times before “Liberty” is something Australians simply don’t get. They historically have not had the need to be protected from their own government and as they haven’t needed it they haven’t demanded it.
While Mr Rees and associates come riding to our rescue, we once again have no opposition. Perhaps people have forgotten, but the role of the opposition in a Westminster system is to oppose. To oppose means to call out all the problems with proposed laws.
The best our mob can do is resort to name calling and attempting to find fault with the sex lives of the government while not bothering to defending what most Aussies would consider the most basic of rights.
One day Australia someone will take away your personal freedoms and you won’t know what hit you. Although some would argue that day already occurred when you said a bloke could not go down to the local pub, have a beer, a cigarette and read the newspaper.
March 29 2009 | Law and Politics | 2 Comments »
My Take
With the Biker Laws that have hit my hot button it is worth going back and having a look at an earlier philosophical thread where I was trying to explore what Justice, the Law and Liberty was. It was essentially an exploration of how to avoid damage to Liberty while at the same time moving towards a state that offers protection from unnecessary bumps and bruises of life. In the course of that post I came up with the following principals against which it is interesting to view the current Anti Biker laws.
To revise the principals
(1) The Law is the will of the State.
(2) The Processes and Procedures of the Law themselves must be Legal
(3) The Principal of Justice is to Avoid Damage and Remediate Damage when it occurs
(4) It is the Law that the Law conform to the Principal of Justice.
(5) The Principal Of Liberty Is Freedom From Interference
(6) It is the Law that the Justness of damage to Liberty must be weighed equally by the Law with the Justness of damage to person, property and possessions.
Note: I have made item (6) more robust by inclusion of the words “It is the Law that”
The anti biker legislation is in fact a perfect example of what I was trying to get my mind around. In this situation the State is trying to avoid damage to it’s citizens. To be honest I wish that was true, but it seems to be more of a case of governments jumping on an opportunity created by fear and sensationalism coming from the media rather than an honest attempt at bettering things.
None the less if we assume that avoiding damage is what they are doing we can see their argument would be to create a situation in which the damage to the population under (3) is met which justifies their need for their Law.
Where we have problems is that if we assume that there are certain basic principals upon which the modern state is based such as Freedom of Association, Due Process, Standards of Evidence, The right of a fair trial amongst others. If we assume that it is indeed the Will of the State (1) that these principals be adhered to then a law that bypasses them puts us in a situation where the “Will of the State” contradicts the “Will of the State”. A situation that only a court can resolve I am afraid.
They are also severely damaging Liberty – the right to choose for yourself how you live your own life.
Without the principal of Liberty and the requirement that the damage to Liberty being weighed against the the damage to person property and possession you could easily find yourself in a situation where you could justify by-passing due process, standards of evidence, the right to a fair trial etc as being in the interest of justice. After all as a consequence of these laws the State can break up the Biker gangs and other groups we know but can not prove are committing crimes.
Surely that leads to a safer and hence more Just State….
March 29 2009 | Law | No Comments »
