The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Beware giving police a bigger stick > Comments

Beware giving police a bigger stick : Comments

By George Morgan, published 18/3/2009

Those who play dog-whistle politics never let truth get in the way of the campaign for more police powers.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
The SA bikie laws are a joke, used by the Rann Labor Government to cover up its inability or unwillingness to clear up the increasing crime in the state which is actually affecting South Australians.

South Australians are not the least affected by bikie gangs. The only time we see or hear of them is when the media beats up the Premier’s publicity seeking and shows a bunch of them riding along the SE Freeway. It’s usually the same bit of footage! They have the odd disagreement occasionally, but that is of no moment to ordinary citizens.

The stupidity of the SA law is that all of the bikies of different clubs got together for their annual ‘poker run’, whatever that is, and it was proclaimed by the same stirring media that Rann had got the ‘rival’ groups together for the first time ever. “Motor Mouth Mike” could only say, “I will not be intimidated”.

This George Morgan, lecturer in humanities (surprise, surprise!) adds more nonsense by referring to Muslim terrorists to pad out his homily on police powers.

“In recent years those from Muslim and, in particular, Middle Eastern backgrounds have endured unprecedented surveillance…” he complains, not bothering about the other fact that there have been unprecedented threats from Muslim would-be terrorists; ‘would-be’ because the surveillance ensured that the Islamic maniacs were put in jail. The same surveillance will go a long way toward keeping other Islamic maniacs under control too.

In comparison, if most bikies are involved in criminal activities, and blowhard Rann succeeds in making them disband, they will simply carry on their activities in the wider criminal community, without their current identifying clothing and motor cycles. Rann has proved incapable of doing anything at all about ‘ordinary’ crime in SA, and the judiciary is no help when they do catch the odd person.

As an aside: the author says that Middle Eastern Muslims are targeted in particular. Of course they are. Asian Muslims and others are not noted for any threatening behaviour in Australia.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 10:40:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George Morgan is only half right about the South Australian legislation. It trenches more deeply on civil liberties than he realises. He writes that the Act makes it an offence for members of the organisation to associate with each other. That’s only the half of it. The declared object of the legislation is to ‘disrupt and restrict’ the activities of members and associates of declared organisations. It will do so whether those activities are lawful or unlawful. Restriction and disruption will be accomplished by making it a criminal offence for anyone at all to associate with members. The disruption and restriction of their lawful activities will be accomplished by making them pariahs with whom it is dangerous for anyone else to associate, lest they be charged with the crime of association. There are, of course, exceptions. Close relatives, for example, can associate with members. The most significant of the exceptions, perhaps, permits members to associate with each other and with non members, so long as they do so in the course of a lawful occupational or professional relationship. Gang members can continue to do business and visit their lawyer, doctor or personal trainer. A priest may associate with a parishioner who is a member of a declared organisation. But individual members of the congregation are guilty of a criminal offence if they do so. Nor can you continue to attend meetings of a school committee with other parents, if one of them turns out to be a member of a declared organisation. These normal, legal, civil activities are to be disrupted and restricted by making everyone else liable to five years imprisonment for their social, religious, political or industrial relationships with members. You may wonder what ordinary citizens are to do if they discover that they live next door to a member of a declared organisation. If half what is said about the members of these organisations is true, it may be unwise to adopt an attitude of rigid rejection towards the neighbour. Better, perhaps, to sell up and move out
Posted by ASPIRIN, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 11:18:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is worse than most people even suspect:
The gangs earn revenue in the $Billions due to prohibition of drugs.
These gangs own hotels, nightclubs, and substantial real estate.
Lax regulation of gambling venues make it very easy to launder cash in Australia, especially when the gangs own the clubs.
Once they have been around a while and established their turf it is in their interest to establish a proper power base in police forces that operate in the "trouble" areas. (ie. the main drug distribution centers). This takes the form of "suitable" gang members joining the force, and establishment of relations with the naturally bent cops already in the drug squad.
Once established, the police based power base can then put the "heat" on any rival gangs and make sure the drugs and cash keep flowing. Giving them more power and weaponry is actually escallating gang violence.
The police will never give up the power and budget that prohibition provides (about 75% of the budget), yet they are also now a big part of the problem. Notice how "corruption inquiries" are ubiquitous in police forces that deal with drugs?
Fact is, the gangs will keep control so long as drugs are given to them as unregulated infinite profit mechanisms. Our police, who used to walk the streets without weapons, will become more like soldiers, never knowing who amongst them is fighting for the other side.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 11:31:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real problem is not Police but lawyers. SA is the first State to give lawyers the government in the atheist or pre-Christian mode when in 1927, the then Liberal Party Government abolished jury trial in that State and gave absolute power to a single lawyer. The second problem most people have is a lack of education on what the Australian Constitution actually means, and how it incorporates the principles of Christianity into good government.

When a Policeman had to justify his actions to a jury, and a jury had as they still have in parts of the United States power both to convict and pass sentence, sequester property, and order compensation, as evidenced by the Magna Carta as published by Halsbury’s Statutes of England, dated 1960, in the Fisher University Library in Sydney, then the country was governed by good government.

Currently we have absolutely second rate lawyers on the High Court and in the Federal Court of Australia or we would still have good government. In 1996 the High Court ruled on the “Kable Principle”. It said that all legislation by the States giving as was done by NSW absolute power of jail or freedom to a Judge, was illegal, but it is unwilling to allow anyone to enforce its rulings. Twice since it has confirmed the “Kable Principle”.

NSW went bad under the influence of Saffron who bribed the Premier to abolish the Supreme Court. The Feds went bad under Fraser probably bribed by organized crime. Victoria went bad in 1986, Qld in 1991, and WA in 2004. That is when the atheist lawyers of the States and Australian Government took over, and in conjunction with their armed and dangerous mates in the Police and Bikie gangs began their reign of drug fuelled terror.

Jesus Christ could have made a plea bargain with Pontius Pilate to save his skin. Instead He was crucified in the cruelest possible way. Jury trials come out of the Gospels. The King and his Police had to answer to Almighty God in the spirit in a jury of 12 disciples
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 19 March 2009 7:04:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While we are governed by Parliaments and Lawyers, without a fair independent and impartial tribunal of fact, as provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Article 14 the Drug trade will continue to flourish, money that should be spent on hospitals and essential services will flow into the pockets of lawyers, and the bribery will continue.

Who is the major beneficiary of increased Police powers; it’s the lawyers criminals employ. Why have they got indulgences to sell. Because they have a lawyer as a Judge, and everyone has a skeleton in their closet somewhere

The abolition of the English principle that no law was enforceable, unless it was enforced by a jury, is at the very heart of Australian corruption. We hear serious squalls from lawyer types, when I say Christianity is incorporated into the Constitution. No lawyer Judge can be a Christian. Atheist government provides an ideal climate for bribery corruption and dishonesty.

An honest man cannot be a State registered lawyer or a Judge. If they were honest they would accept the High Court ruling on the “Kable Principle”, accept that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a law of this land, instead of sending Father Brennan around the country to campaign against it.

In an honest government the courts would not fail to allow anyone to come to court for justice. In an honest government no one would be denied a day in court, and in Queensland until 1991, no one was. An honest government would not tolerate the reduction of the Federal Supreme Court provided by S 71 Constitution, to a superannuated cadre of atheist individuals. They call it the High Court but in fact it is simply a non competitive Federal Cabinet, unelected and ineffective.

KR can fix the States properly. He can repeal s 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and abolish Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules and restore full Christian government; One God, One Queen, one Commonwealth, and one law. The Commonwealth has legislated for competition; the restrictive Trade Practices by courts continues
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 19 March 2009 7:36:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy