Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

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.

SA anti-bikie laws ruled "invalid"

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by BIWOZ, Sep 25, 2009.

  1. This just gets better and better all the time. I may not be a huge supporter of OMG, but I sure as hell don't support bastard laws like these.

  2. Do you have a link?
  3. good to here common sense isn't completely lost yet
  4. I was about to post this… glad to see there's still some sense of not being a complete knobjockey in the legal system. Now if only they'd start overturning other unjust laws.
  5. I might be reading your statement wrong but I have seen no failure of the 'legal system' - I see the total opposite. The government enacted laws, they were tested by the system, and failed. Sounds like things are running fine.
  6. The system worked in this case, which is what I think is good. But there are still a lot of terrible laws out there, and the system worked AFTER the law was passed, which it never should have been.
  7. If the cost to individuals who were inflicted with these laws was zero, or they were compensated for the inconvenience and suffering caused by the laws, then the system would be working.

    Also, many laws only effect individuals in a minor way for each incident, and yet effect some individuals significantly due to circumstances. Think of some of the parking offenses people suffer because developers provided insufficient parking spaces, approved by the local council, who then reap the benefits of parking fines, at great cost to some people. Think also about the ridiculously low tolerances and myopic view the Victorian government has about speeding. These laws wont be challenged by individuals, because the cost far outweighs the benefit. Then for each law repealed because it was wrong, the law makers can put up ten more similar laws to achieve their goals, it seems without significant controls, and which individuals then need to challenge at their cost. The system still needs great improvement.

    As it is, individuals often bear the burden of having inappropriate, invalid, vague, or unfair laws changed, and that is wrong.
  8. No.
    The laws should never have gotten past parliament.

    The opposition should not have been so desperate for the 'tough on crime' vote to let this turd of a bill through in the first place.

    We likely now owe a large chunk of the democratic freedom in Australia to an outlaw motorcycle gang who were (impressively) organised enough to protect aspects of their lives that are identical to ours.

    I applaud them, and I receive this news with relief and the sincere hope that NSW and QLD similary amend these stupid, fascist laws.
  9. Still, don't blame the legal system, Judges don't make laws. It is bad governance that is to blame. Bureaucrats tossing laws at us without any thought.
  10. +1 What a shitful way to run a democracy.
  11. Isn't the 'legal system' also the legislator that creates, votes and enacts the laws?
  12. The Legislature is separate from the Judiciary. Separation of Powers.
  13. Don't you understand the problem with these laws??
    They BRIDGE the Legislature and the Judiciary. That is why they are evil and wrong.

    If you know the legislation, the government elected 'special judges' to administer the Control Orders.
    Control Orders were based on charges kept secret from the defendant, who was not able to see any evidence against them or even hear the charge they were being accused of to construct a defence.

    Most charges were trumped up under the Firearms Act, to give police the power to enter these people's homes any time, day or night to search/harass/whatever they like.

    The government created the legislation, then chose the judges that would assist in it's enforcement.
    The judges would be chosen and empowered by the government, and obviously owe their new pay grade and political standing to the legislature.
    Bias, much?

    Any member of the judiciary, especially someone as high up as a judge with the respect and understanding of the law they have, who would happily be part of administering the control order legislation is a whore for power and money.
  14. And Bonk, don't forget, there is considerable concern in NSW about undue influence from the government in the appointment of judges.

    Sooty, I was just splitting hairs. There may be separation of powers, but for most people there is little to differentiate all the segments of the system
  15. The media are jumping on a win for crime bandwagon, ninemsn has the headline , Crime wins in Bikies judgement. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=867702
    And this gem of a quote from the S.A Attorney general
    So they admit to going past there constitutional authority and take pride in that :censored:
    And it's not overyet W.A is still planning on going ahead with anti bikie legislation there
  16. The S.A. Attorney General openly admits to willfully and unrepentantly exceeding the authority of his office and the Australian Constitution, enacting a law to be used to restrict the freedom of voting Australian citizens, threaten democracy and the separation of powers, without referendum?

    What is the legal definition of treason?
  17. You know... even on netrider... where some of the posters are quick to shoot, red of neck and lack some capacity of thought, sometimes one sees insights of such clarity that we could wish these were the people making decisions in the parliament.
  18. So, let me get this straight.

    The Police lose (temporarily, I'm sure) the right to investigate, search and prosecute, the activities, locations ands resources of an identifiable group of society who conduct their activities behind 7' high brick fences with razor wire on top, and CCTV surveillance, and who are known to be not just involved in, but to run, criminal activities, and this is a victory?
  19. Yes, it is. The ends the gov't wished to achieve with these laws is not what was disagreeable.. It was the means with which they would achieve them.

    Besides, the Police do not lose the power to investigate and prosecute them, they lose the power to prevent them from associating with each other based on reasons that would otherwise not carry enough weight in court for a conviction.