Early in 2014 the Napthine Government in Victoria aims to pass draconian laws that will make it almost impossible for community groups, and others, to assemble in public. That's why the Australia Day protests this Sunday are so important. If you want to "assemble" where you want, with who you want, head for a parliament house near you. Details elsewhere on this blog and on the IRG facebook pages.
The Victorian Attorney General, Liberal MP Robert Clark will put the first of the Queensland-type anti-association laws to parliament on Tuesday, February 4. I plan to be in the public gallery and I invite anyone who can, to be there too. Details of times etc. are on:
www.parliament.vic.gov.au
January 21, 2014.
These laws could make it very hard to organise big rides like TOY RUNs if someone in your local police or in government did not like the organisers. Prejudice & discrimination have always been with us but now it is aimed directly at us.
Go to a parliament house near you this Australia Day and protest against police-state laws.
Soon you may not be allowed to.
Damien
IRG
January 22, 2014.
Right to assemble?! You won't have the "right" to inhale without a written permit the way things are going. Then you'll have to hold your breath while the cops drive past.
Remember these bikies laws are NOT bikie laws. As Boris points out the legislation does not even mention motorcycles/ motorcyclists, bikes/ Bikies. It is very UNSPECIFIC and AMBIGUOUS so it can cast a very wide net over whomever the police choose.
At this juncture VLAD laws are being sold to the public as affecting filthy, criminal 1%er gangs so the changes will be accepted and subsequently entrenched into the daily life of Australians.
If they were accurately perceived as "anti-whatever-we-feel-like" laws then there might be a murmur of resistance (not rebellion, most Australians being the apathetic dicks they are).
No matter whom the laws are aimed at (exclusively for now) the whole thing is moot as we already have laws against rape, drug dealing, drug manufacturing, drug cultivation, drug possession, assault and affray, battery, and everything else between mass murder and grotting on the footpath. The public (if only they were capable of intelligent deductions from clear evidence) ought be asking why "these people" (or anyone else) are not being prosecuted under existing laws.
Interestingly, in Singapore (which I think Newman wants to model his Queensland on) citizens must apply for a permit to gather. This definitely applies to protests. The police will 'get back to you'. If and when they do, what you say and do at your regulated protest is closely monitored and authorities will stand by to squash it at a moment's notice should you been seen as creating dissent.
If this label is applied to you, you are really in the shit! Deep!!!
In the event that your gathering should proceed and your day of demonstration/whatever comes and goes, detailed records will be kept and the authorities will have the power to charge you retrospectively for being a troublemaker, an enemy of the state as it were!
Please make the distinction between POWER and RIGHT. I believe everyone has the RIGHT to demonstrate and state their point and air their grievances. This sort of oppression affects their POWER to do so.
If it were only the case of Queensland and its "White Sadam", Campbell Newman exercising his insanity, that would be one thing, but the sad fact is that police top brass all over the country have been baying for these laws (and the extra power their henchmen will get as a result) to be authorised in their respective states. I would reserve some respect for any police comish outside of Queensland who publically denounced the law as UnAustralian and stated that he did NOT want such shit in his state.
This is why I pounced on the opportunity to write an open letter to Scipione (NSW Police Minister) about the headline story that 1 in 40 police have crim records.
Another distinction is LAW vs PENALTY. Drug distribution, for example, is illegal (unless you are Bayer, Hoechst, Pfizer et al and lobby the government). The penalty for this is X.
Why is it then acceptable for certain groups to be liable for a penalty of Y for these offences?
And if this is the case, surely police, noble and trusted public servants, should be liable for a penalty of Z for their similar offences!
Perhaps next time I am charged with bashing someone with a few of my mates for saturday night sport, I can claim "stress'' because "my job is so stressful". Or does this only work if your gang colour is blue?
Speaking of which, perhaps I should see the writing on the proverbial and invest in grey or beige clothes and practice meditating while I chant the name of our Fuehrer.
Lindsay
www.parliament.vic.gov.au
January 21, 2014.
These laws could make it very hard to organise big rides like TOY RUNs if someone in your local police or in government did not like the organisers. Prejudice & discrimination have always been with us but now it is aimed directly at us.
Go to a parliament house near you this Australia Day and protest against police-state laws.
Soon you may not be allowed to.
Damien
IRG
January 22, 2014.
Right to assemble?! You won't have the "right" to inhale without a written permit the way things are going. Then you'll have to hold your breath while the cops drive past.
Remember these bikies laws are NOT bikie laws. As Boris points out the legislation does not even mention motorcycles/ motorcyclists, bikes/ Bikies. It is very UNSPECIFIC and AMBIGUOUS so it can cast a very wide net over whomever the police choose.
At this juncture VLAD laws are being sold to the public as affecting filthy, criminal 1%er gangs so the changes will be accepted and subsequently entrenched into the daily life of Australians.
If they were accurately perceived as "anti-whatever-we-feel-like" laws then there might be a murmur of resistance (not rebellion, most Australians being the apathetic dicks they are).
No matter whom the laws are aimed at (exclusively for now) the whole thing is moot as we already have laws against rape, drug dealing, drug manufacturing, drug cultivation, drug possession, assault and affray, battery, and everything else between mass murder and grotting on the footpath. The public (if only they were capable of intelligent deductions from clear evidence) ought be asking why "these people" (or anyone else) are not being prosecuted under existing laws.
Interestingly, in Singapore (which I think Newman wants to model his Queensland on) citizens must apply for a permit to gather. This definitely applies to protests. The police will 'get back to you'. If and when they do, what you say and do at your regulated protest is closely monitored and authorities will stand by to squash it at a moment's notice should you been seen as creating dissent.
If this label is applied to you, you are really in the shit! Deep!!!
In the event that your gathering should proceed and your day of demonstration/whatever comes and goes, detailed records will be kept and the authorities will have the power to charge you retrospectively for being a troublemaker, an enemy of the state as it were!
Please make the distinction between POWER and RIGHT. I believe everyone has the RIGHT to demonstrate and state their point and air their grievances. This sort of oppression affects their POWER to do so.
If it were only the case of Queensland and its "White Sadam", Campbell Newman exercising his insanity, that would be one thing, but the sad fact is that police top brass all over the country have been baying for these laws (and the extra power their henchmen will get as a result) to be authorised in their respective states. I would reserve some respect for any police comish outside of Queensland who publically denounced the law as UnAustralian and stated that he did NOT want such shit in his state.
This is why I pounced on the opportunity to write an open letter to Scipione (NSW Police Minister) about the headline story that 1 in 40 police have crim records.
Another distinction is LAW vs PENALTY. Drug distribution, for example, is illegal (unless you are Bayer, Hoechst, Pfizer et al and lobby the government). The penalty for this is X.
Why is it then acceptable for certain groups to be liable for a penalty of Y for these offences?
And if this is the case, surely police, noble and trusted public servants, should be liable for a penalty of Z for their similar offences!
Perhaps next time I am charged with bashing someone with a few of my mates for saturday night sport, I can claim "stress'' because "my job is so stressful". Or does this only work if your gang colour is blue?
Speaking of which, perhaps I should see the writing on the proverbial and invest in grey or beige clothes and practice meditating while I chant the name of our Fuehrer.
Lindsay
No comments:
Post a Comment