Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by alexanderino, Apr 5, 2011.
Key bits highlighted. From Adelaide Now:
sorry, with the exception of the word bikie being used once, how does this relate to bikes?
I'm no fan of organised crime, but try substituting the word 'netrider' instead of 'bikie' and you'll see the problem.
Once it's in place, there would be nothing to stop them.
Edit; Actually, it could possibly be placed in 'Off Topic', as it's a civil liberties issue.
This is relevant to anyone who is associated with a group of motorcycle riders. 'Bikie' is not confined to outlaw motorcyclists.
This is relevant to EVERYONE.. There is a current High Court of Australia case going on right now about this. The legislation is absolutely ****ing astonishing. It's really gone under the radar because of the 'bikie' affiliation... 'they must be doing something wrong' kind of reaction from the public.
I'm sorry, but anyone that has done an RSA should know that pubs can be shut down for 2-3 days without warning on the basis of criminal dealings or extreme cases of affray or disorder. At least that's the case in NSW.
And I still don't see how this relates to bikes in any way despite having the word bikie in the title.
Forget the B/S, what it means in plain English is.
If a group of Netriders go on a run, and there is some one with a criminal record amongst you, Only one is enough,
You all get locked up,
Look at the link above, under association,
Its the old Victorian consorting laws back again, only in a stronger form.
Any one the plod deems bad,
And if you dont think it applies to you, Think again, It does,
It says nothing of the sort.
What does it say to you Lilley?
(1) In this Act:
"associate with" means:
(a) to be in company with, or
(b) to communicate with by any means (including by post, facsimile, telephone and email or any other form of electronic communication).
To me it says that SA are changing the licensed venue laws to reflect that of other states, and some ambitious "journalist" (as some people call them) decided to beat the dead horse of the bikie law furor back to life for half a giggle.
Is the bikie furor dead in your opinion?
bad choice of word perhaps. In the context of the sensationalist media though, yes I would say dead.
...maybe. I doubt they'll give up trying to skin that cat in a hurry.
You know what would be awesome? Legally protected freedom of speech, freedom to refuse to self-incriminate, freedom to associate, freedom from censorship. You know, the things that make a free country.
We could start with a constitution that literally acknowledges that this is a free country (it currently doesn't). And not a penal colony, which is what a lot of senior police would like to return it to.
The gay marriage thread is over there >>>>>
But this isn't a free country and it never will be. I hear people talking about free speech etc all the time and think they've all spent too much time watching American TV shows. Even USA isn't a true free country and they do have a constitution. For me to have a freedom, it infers that other people have a duty not to infringe on that freedom. Suddenly we find ourselves in a dilemma that my freedom creates necessary boundaries for you and so you aren't free if I am.
Free countries don't and can't exist.
No country can truly be free because the existence of the State requires impingement upon ultimate freedom.
However, I would hope most reasonable persons would acknowledge that the realistic goal is a situation where the individual is free to do anything he pleases that does not impinge upon the life (this does not mean it won't influence your passage through life, note the butterfly effect theory. It means that the physical state of life/health shall not be impinged upon), liberty, or property of another individual.
That is to say, in a hypothetical situation where I am pulled over for a random licence check, I should be legally protected if I want to tell the officer that I believe he's a time-wasting shitbag who should stop leeching off the funds stolen by the state from me and contribute to the wellbeing of society in a measurable fashion. Obviously I'm an asshole if I actually SAY it, but there should be no reason for me to not be able to say it legally.
Likewise, as an adult above the age of majority, I should be able to purchase any book, movie or game I wish, without the government deciding on my behalf that it is not appropriate so long as the production of the material does not impinge upon the life, liberty or property of another person. Under this way of thinking, of course things like child pornography is not allowed, because it does not meet the above guidelines.
Lastly, the behind-closed-doors behavior the the state still seeks to control. What happens between consenting adults of sound mind is no business of anyone they do not choose to include. If they want to take turns putting carrots in each other's asses and eating them with ranch dressing, how is that any of my business except to say that ranch is almost as gross as the ass-carrot? Likewise, the concept of marriage is based in religion, and should not be recognized by the government in ANY fashion, be it between opposite sex or same sex partners. If the government chooses to have tax incentives for persons in a recognized civil union, go for it… but don't be illogical assholes and tell any adults they can't have these unions with each other because they have the same parts or chromosomal configuration.
The average person is not going to call cops shitbags or smoke crack in his own home just because it's legal, because the average person acts based on mature thought processes that are shaped by society as a whole during his or her formative years. Likewise, the persons who ARE likely to do these things are going to do them irrespective of what the State says is ok.
My initial reaction is to agree with you whole heartedly. And I do agree that what you describe is how it should ideally be. But when I think about my experiences what I consider the average person, I don’t have as much confidence in our society as you do.
I believe the above average person makes decisions based on mature thought processes. The average person bases their decisions on hearsay, rumour and a lot of dodgy rationalisms. It is so rare for people to actually do some impartial research on a subject and make up their minds based on the facts. The average person listens to the person who sounds the most confident or has the conclusion that is most convenient for them. The amount of rubbish that spews out of people’s mouths and the media is astounding.
That’s not to say that I believe the government has got it all correct. There’s a hell of a lot of things they go too far with. Even our current average person should be able to decide who to marry, what video game to play, whether they want to save money for the future and what fruit they want to shove in their arses etc. etc. But when it comes to safety concerns, the average person needs help. Ideally this help would come in the form of a serious reshaping of societies but failing that (which the government is failing abysmally at); the alternative is rules like the helmet one.
I’m not saying I think we necessarily are this way. I believe we have created this problem ourselves by a combination of poor education and attitudes about respect. Take for instance the whole ‘tolerance’ push we’ve been bombarded with for years. That’s what the government seems to think is the best they can hope for…Tolerance. What about educating the people such that other viewpoints are accepted and understood? Tolerance may sometimes alter the behaviour of a person but the same bias and prejudice remains underneath that ‘acceptable’ behaviour. In times of stress the tolerance fails and the stupid and dangerous behaviour begins. The government has got it totally wrong and it’s reinforcing the notion that people do not need to do any brain work themselves. Understanding and being empathetic towards others viewpoints requires more hard work but it’s that attitude we need for freedoms to not result in a majority of people making poor decisions.