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 kyro_02, Nov 20, 2007.
what's your take on this ?
He can pass all the laws he likes, but if he can't enforce them all the time in every case, he's wasting his time. More window dressing from a government bankrupt for ideas.
Have you ever tried squeezing ALL the toothpaste out of a tube? Just when you've got some of it moving, some more slips back into the tube....
Which might, to a rational human being, suggest that the SA approach is a wee bit over the top.
Funnily enough, the rest of the world seems to be coping with OMCs just fine without needing to take a trip to Planet Rann.
So is he planning to ban the Ulysses Club, the Patriots and the Vietnam Vets? How exactly is he planning to define an "outlaw" club?
a new law for a whole 200 people.
Time and effort well spent.
Ill laught my head of when they all disband and join uslyls
Governments all over are missing the point entirely. As any married man will tell you, the problem in Australia is not the Outlaws, but the In-Laws .
The only thing the SA government can do is attack the OMCs as legal entities (ie. registered clubs and associations, or companies). They can deregister, forbid the holding of assets (possibly seize assets, but not personal vehicles), but (on a state level) they can't actually pass laws that forbid people to meet or associate ( except where there is a proven threat to an individual). The only laws that exist in Australia that have those powers are the federal terrorism laws. I think the High Court would have no choice but to scrap any such legislation as unconstitutional (if challenged).
It's worth noting that since SA hasn't had much in the way of juicy issues for politicians to use as ladders to power, the local pollies there of both sides have been drumming on this story for quite some time now. It still hasn't seemed to have got much response from the general population.
I've no interest in caring about the welfare of OMCs but the implications for civil liberties relating to all sorts of other groups could be downright frightening.
Better the devil you know, than the one that goes underground...
Look everyone, i'm passing laws to show you that i'm serious about crime. Blah blah blah
But isn't the current plan that instead of using existing laws to fix problems, you create new laws to make it look like you're fixing problems.
There is obviously a problem with certain "bikie" gangs, but there are also laws against dealing drugs, violence, firearms etc...
SO USE THEM...
Like to see where the resources to enforce this are comming from! :roll:
If they were really serious about fighting crime then they'd start with mandatory sentencing for serious crimes. None of this crap that is being dished out by the courts like what we're seeing.
Secondly, stop treating prisons like they're holiday resorts and take back control of them. Make them utterly miserable to be in and reward genuine good behavior.
Crooks generally don't like hard work and avoid it like the plague. So, introduce a mountain of rocks. If they want to eat, then reduce that pile of rocks to rubble for use in road making or whatever.
I think that they used to call it "hard labor".
If they (the governments) think that bike clubs, gangs, whatever you want to call them, are genuine threats to the community then they can use existing laws to deal with them. Or tighten up the loopholes that crooks tend to ferret out blindfolded.
*Read with sarcasm*
But, but, you can't take away their RIGHTS!
You left ou use the "proceeds of crime" legislation to confiscate property as well.
Apart from that minor omission :WStupid:
That's what I thought, 200 criminals and 45 cops full time to take care of them?
Mandatory sentencing is not the answer, there has to be room for mitigating cercumstances, there is a diference between Killing a complete stranger and killing someone who has just murdered all of your family. (It's still not part of a sociaty we want but it is diferent)
But Having Better sentencing guidlines, and making sure than they are held to, and that any judge can be called up for review of his/her sentencing so that they have to answer for there desisions (Probably would be to other juedges)
I have to agree with the people who have pointed out that for 200 people, it wouldn't take a lot to get ligitimate charges laid within the existing laws if they are so EVIL. So why pass new laws that are discriminatory when existing laws should be able to handle it.
1. Because you require proof to enact laws , search warrants, seizure of goods, phone taps .
Under these new laws they dont require any proof , they can just do what they want for what ever time period they like and you have no rights.
2. These laws if enacted prevents the accused being able to have a fair trial , this has allready been recognised by the supreme court as injusrt and making a mockery of the justice syatem and ones right to a fair hearing.
3. Wrann has campigned for years on the back of motorcycle clubs
saying they are all criminals and responsable for crime, contri to A.S.I.O reports and intelligance gathered by his own Police force.
4. Its easy to target a group than a indavidual.
5. This is the first step in the goverment ( big brother) telling you who you can and cant associate with , who you can see or not.
The first step of eroding your civil rights , get used too it , because if you are niave enough to belive that using terrorism laws against motorcycle clubs is where they will stop and support it then you deserve everything you get in the future.
6. last but not least , this law then if sucessfull can be used against other sectors of the community at the goverments descretion.
They mount a campaign saying your crooked, then use the laws against you.
Do people honestly believe that these laws wont be used against anyone who stands up against the ruling goiverment in the future ?
Imagine being the head of the Gun lobby and they want to ban all guns ?
That you are a leader of a political party running against the goverment ?
if even worse Imagine if you witnessed a high profile goverment figure, a judge or high ranking member of police force involved in a crime , say phedophelia or murder and you come forward as a witness
Do you honestly think that you will be heard or these laws will not be used against you to cover the tracks of these people or protect collective arses.
just my opinion on the issue and maybe a few points of thought to contiplate .
BINGO! we have a winner.
So if the curent Laws can do it all within the limits of needing proof, and these laws represent a tool, that can be used with out the need for due process. Then the motivation has to be looked at it.
And As Glenn has shown the way in which these sort of laws can be twisted is a very dangerous precedent. (Sort of like most of the Anti Terrorist stuff).
All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, these laws are on principle EVIL. There is no excuse for ignoring the just application of the due process of law. I repeat NO excuse, unless there is clear and IMMEDIATE danger to the public and even then the existing laws cover that.
There are more murders per head in the states and they have capital punishment! people don't think they will get caught.
here is a petition that has been started for that very reason.
read it and decide for yourself if you wish too stand up and be counted.
Place it in your signature box , distribute it as you see fit.
Mmmm Silence the Lamb's...
Next they will Ban the next Moped Club/Gang, Coz they split lanes too much...
But yet Weird Security guarded Religous groups can freely pay no Tax, answer to no-one and have lunch with Mr Howard, all on the same day???