Lester and Jo, do you think it would be a good idea for our government to decisively deal with bikie criminal activities?

Or would it be better for them to attack the problem indecisively, tokenistically, disingenuinely – being seen to do something while not actually achieving anything of any significance?

Or would it have been best if they just hadn't bothered at all and let the status quo remain?

What is the job of government here?

Ok so you’re worried about the infringement of civil liberties of those who undertake harmless bikie activities but can be charged under the new laws. Fair enough.

But you haven’t mentioned the infringement of civil liberties of those who are negatively impacted upon by bikie criminal activities.

If any law is going to be effective, then its going to step on some innocent peoples’ toes, yes?

I would like to see the Newman government extend their efforts and strive to improve the rule of law across all of society. Not least with road rules and the policing thereof.

The sheer hypocrisy and double standards of this article are appalling.

As usual the left wing completely ignore the difference between consensual and non-consensual transactions which invalidates their entire argument.

But only deliberate dishonesty, or complete ignorance of what they are talking about, can explain their misrepresentation that libertarians stand for the liberty of the wolves. If they had bothered learning anything about libertarianism other than the caricatures they teach in the state indoctrination factories in which they serve as functionaries with a vested interest in big government, they would know that the grounding tenet of libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom. The fact that Lester and Jo oppose that, means they are in favour of aggressive violence; it's they, not libertarians, who stand for the liberty of the wolves.

Let's offer the authors a chance to prove me wrong on that precise point. At what stage, Lester and Jo, short of actually shooting people, do you renounce the violence involved in the enforced funding of the ABC and your own comfortable sinecures which no-one voluntarily pays for?

Stupid lefties can't believe individual editors do as they see fit and aren't the puppets of Murdoch.

They never seem to think the ABC is a puppet of the Abbott government though. I smell hypocrisy.

The authors should perhaps address the continuing murders committed by convicted murderers who are released from prison? What about that? One of the most telling arguments against capital punishment was that an innocent could be executed. Neither author has ever suggested that convicted murderers should be held for ever in case they murder again in fact quite the opposite. What about valuing a human life? How many years and what about two murders?
In Victoria a felon got 11 years for his first murder, 10 years for his second and now we are told a full life sentence for his third.
What about the authors having a crack at this sort of problem where the result is not another big pay day for some sleazy lawyer.

...There are two imperatives (among many), for incoming Government priority; they are to stack the bench of the High Court, and to stack the management of the ABC; the State arm of the propaganda machine.

So where were you, Lester, when Nicola Roxon was trying to shut down freedom of the press? Where were you when Bolt was being prosecuted over an article in a newspaper which "offended" people who claimed to be aboriginal?

The one outstanding aspect of the human rights lobby is that it gets all self righteous over the "rights" of criminals, terrorists, illegal immigrants and homosexuals, but is conspicuously missing in action when anything involves the rights of everybody else.

Because of this clear double standard, which every member of the public is aware of, nobody gives a tinkers cuss anymore when characters like you puff your chest out and start moaning about "rights." It is totally unacceptable that criminal gangs who traffic in drugs and commit murders can roam the streets with labels on their back identifying themselves as dangerous criminals and there is nothing that the police can do about it. If that is the law, then it is time to change the law and change the perception of "rights."

You and your friends blew it, Lester. The public enemies are the bikie gangs who roam our streets, kill people, shoot up houses, intimidate witnesses, kill police officers (WA) and control the drug trade with standover tactics and threats of beatings. Nowhere in your little rant did you even bother to mention that. No, to specimens like yourself, it is the police who are the enemy and so are the politicians who are responding to what the public expects.

What is wrong with you trendies? Why do you reflexively take the contrary line to every responsible proposal? Peer pressure? The need to think you belong to a select group?

Whatever, the rest of the population are fed up to the back teeth of people like you and I hope that you get beat up by the Commancheros so that you can grow a brain and grow up.

Any crimes committed by "bikies" can already be investigated and prosecuted.

There's no need to criminalise simply "being a bikie" or associating with them, or give increased sentences for the same crimes as non-bikies.

"an apologist for paedophiles"?

I didn't know bikies were in that arena.

First, they came for the "racists" and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a "racist".
Then they came for the "bikies"...

Shockadelic one of the leading bikie thugs has been charged with raping a 14 year old girl. So what is your definition of a pedophile?
You miss the main point that these are gangsters. A couple of smart ones get stupid ones to commit the crimes and take the rap. At a recent gangland funeral they grabbed a reporter and took his driving licence off him so knowing his family home.
What do you want FREE legal representation provided by the reptiles in the legal industry and paid for by us?
These laws were enacted was in the US 30 years ago and in fact 100 years ago in Australia with the consorting laws. Of course if lawyers cannot make a quid out of our misery it is a poor do!

There were a lot of people in the USA and Europe who once thought like you do Shockie, and thought that organised international criminals could be dealt with by existing laws. The result has been that these criminal gangs are now endemic in every western country,(even Russia), they control the drug distribution in every country, and there have been literally thousands of deaths attributed to these very violent gangs.

Hundreds have been murdered in the USA. Hundreds more in Canada. Even countries like Sweden, once famous for its low rates of criminal behaviour, are suffering from bikie gang related crime. What you are not intelligent enough to realise is that these people are not the Marlon Brando counter culture heroes of the alternative lifestyle. they are dangerous criminals who discovered something new. The very social structure of bikie gangs made them absolutely ideal for creating organised crime "firms".

What we now have in Sydney are ethnic gangs who do not even ride motorbikes who are organising along biker club lines and challenging the bikers for control of the drug trades in their particular crime filled ethnic ghettoes.

The new laws are simply a repeat of NSW's once very successful 'Consorting Laws" which were once hailed as enlightened by overseas police forces and which were considered internationally as the most effective organised crime laws ever introduced by an intelligent society.

For heaven's sake. If violent criminals can walk around advertising the fact that they are violent criminals then there is something obviously wrong with our laws. We in Sydney even have violent Middle Eastern gangs driving around with MEOC (Middle Eastern Organised Crime) number plates proudly informing everybody that they are violent criminals. On the principle that if you do nothing a bout a problem it will only get worse, then if our politicians and police do not act now, we will probably see people walking around with "MAFIA", LA COSA NOSTRA, UNION CORSE, 5T, ASSYRIAN KINGS, TALIBAN and AL QAIDA on their backs.

JBowyer "one of the leading bikie thugs has been charged with raping a 14 year old girl."

And can be prosecuted under existing laws.
Was this a "statutory" rape (i.e. not rape at all)?
Because we all know 14-year-olds have no interest in sex.

"So what is your definition of a pedophile?"

The premier said "paedophiles", plural.
Implying organised exploitation, not singular instances.

"At a recent gangland funeral..."

And why was a reporter there?

"What do you want FREE legal representation"

The right to legal representation and the presumption of innocence are supposed to apply to everyone.
Considering the number of bikies per capita, legal "reptiles" couldn't make much money out of them.

Lego "these criminal gangs are now endemic"

Because the authorities banned "fun drug" use, a victimless "crime".
You can only form criminal networks if something's illegal in the first place.

"thousands of deaths"

Mostly other gangsters, who knew the life they were getting into.
And murder is already a crime. Prosecute them.

"not the Marlon Brando counter culture heroes"

The problem with laws like this is that many law-abiding people will be harassed by the police, simply for "looking like a bikie", riding a motorcycle or even just delivering pizza or fixing their broken window (association).

"What we now have in Sydney are ethnic gangs"

And we wouldn't have "ethnic ghettoes/gangs" if Australians hadn't passively and pathetically allowed the ridiculous immigration policy of recent decades.
If we stopped further immigration from troublesome peoples, you'd "remove the firewood from under the pot", limiting further recruits and contacts.

"If violent criminals can walk around advertising the fact that they are violent criminals"

And what of Muslims in burqas or punks with torn clothes?
Do they say "responsible citizen" or something more hostile?
But the clothes themselves cannot harm anyone.

Where do we draw the line, legislating how people look?
Satanic crosses? Pierced noses? "Vulgar" tattoos?

I don't care what people wear.
I don't care if they buy or sell drugs.

I only care if they commit serious crimes with real victims.
And they can already be prosecuted for those.

The authors oppose the VLAD laws... the IPA also oppose the VLAD laws... and yet the authors still manage to attack the IPA as defending the liberty of the wolves.

The blind and irrational hatred of the IPA is starting to become amusing. Or perhaps this is intentional satire?