Gimps. Just gimps.
Aside from the patent evidence of being alive, I'm going to rant about politics. Yeah, surprise.
In W.A. we have had the State Government panel reviewing the proposed Stop & Search laws recommend against them 3:2; interestingly it was a Nationals senator which went against her 2 Liberal compadres to recommend that the laws be scrapped (she sided with a Greens and Labor senator). The Libs, predictably, still supported it.
The key poit here is, as raised by the 3 dissenting members, the police already have powers to stop and search, so relaxing their need for reasonable suspicion, coupled with overwhelming protections to detain for blank refusal of their orders, that this would result in an erosio (indeed, a dissolution) of civil liberties.
One point raised on the talkback this morning was that these things have a way of creeping. Take the Proceeds of Crime legislation, to sieze the assets of orgaised crime. Sold as a limited use way of denying the proceeds of crime in only certain cases; within a year the house of a pedophile was seized because he had molested a girl in the shed; it wasn't even his house, it was his wife's. Now, you've got teenage drug addicts houses being siezed off their parents.
The fear here is, if useful in Northbridge at 2 a.m. to suppress crime (and that's arguable) then the scope, range, area and frequency with which these super-special limited zones could be declared by the Police Commissioner will spread. It will turn from a Northbridge only event to a blanket zone, and then, naturally, into a state-wide normality.
SO. Three of the five senators recommend against it. There's no money in betting that The Parrot will just ramrod it through.
Second issue was this taser thing - perhaps because it was only last week this was why ALL people calling in to Talkback on the ABC today came to the conclusion that Stop and Search was a stupid idea. It will turn into Stop and Search and Taser.
We had a situation where an Aboriginal man was tasered 13 times while 9 police officers stood around. He was then tasered another dozen times by corrective services officers. And an unspecified number of times on a third occasion.
The response from Rob Johnson, the Police Minister, and Carl O'Callaghan the Police Commissioner? The Commissioner finally began a second internal review (the first having exonerated the 2 police involved in directly tasering this man; ignoring the 7 culpable for letting it go ahead). Together, in an attempt to excuse the actions of the police officers, they released the criminal history of this guy.
Now, taking aboard the fact the man is a criminal, even an habitual criminal, and leaving aside his Aboriginality, his likely drug-addled brain, his drug use, mental instability or mental issues - indeed all ameliorating things - even if he was a career criminal and a thug and druggie....what is the Police Minister's statement and actions really sugesting?
Is he suggesting that its OK to taser a criminal? That when you have a rap sheet longer than a script to Wager's Ring Cycle, that suddenly its OK to use a taser on a handcuffed man when he's on the floor and surrounded by 9 police officers, in a police station? What are you saying, Mr Johnson, that you can arbitrarily decide when it becomes OK to taser someone, indeed one may argue, torture someone?
Both these issues really, really concern me. There seems to be this point, in Western Australia, at which point you become a criminal, and are subjected to arbitrary physical violence, even outright torturous assault. That point is being moved farther and rarther to the point of mere suspicion, not even any longer to the point at which one has clearly propagated violence. Indeed, soon it seems, they won't even need suspicion in order to subject you to an invasion of your privacy, any resistance to which can be met with tasers.
When will come the day when the Police can simply taser you if they want a chat? It is arguably a hell of a lot closer than I feel comfortable with.
Hopefully people in W.A. have finally woken up to this. I've said recently the only difference between W.A. and Fiji is that in Fiji you can't have more than 5 people gather before its illegal. That's about it - and if that's not scary, then you are seriously a fuckwit.
In W.A. we have had the State Government panel reviewing the proposed Stop & Search laws recommend against them 3:2; interestingly it was a Nationals senator which went against her 2 Liberal compadres to recommend that the laws be scrapped (she sided with a Greens and Labor senator). The Libs, predictably, still supported it.
The key poit here is, as raised by the 3 dissenting members, the police already have powers to stop and search, so relaxing their need for reasonable suspicion, coupled with overwhelming protections to detain for blank refusal of their orders, that this would result in an erosio (indeed, a dissolution) of civil liberties.
One point raised on the talkback this morning was that these things have a way of creeping. Take the Proceeds of Crime legislation, to sieze the assets of orgaised crime. Sold as a limited use way of denying the proceeds of crime in only certain cases; within a year the house of a pedophile was seized because he had molested a girl in the shed; it wasn't even his house, it was his wife's. Now, you've got teenage drug addicts houses being siezed off their parents.
The fear here is, if useful in Northbridge at 2 a.m. to suppress crime (and that's arguable) then the scope, range, area and frequency with which these super-special limited zones could be declared by the Police Commissioner will spread. It will turn from a Northbridge only event to a blanket zone, and then, naturally, into a state-wide normality.
SO. Three of the five senators recommend against it. There's no money in betting that The Parrot will just ramrod it through.
Second issue was this taser thing - perhaps because it was only last week this was why ALL people calling in to Talkback on the ABC today came to the conclusion that Stop and Search was a stupid idea. It will turn into Stop and Search and Taser.
We had a situation where an Aboriginal man was tasered 13 times while 9 police officers stood around. He was then tasered another dozen times by corrective services officers. And an unspecified number of times on a third occasion.
The response from Rob Johnson, the Police Minister, and Carl O'Callaghan the Police Commissioner? The Commissioner finally began a second internal review (the first having exonerated the 2 police involved in directly tasering this man; ignoring the 7 culpable for letting it go ahead). Together, in an attempt to excuse the actions of the police officers, they released the criminal history of this guy.
Now, taking aboard the fact the man is a criminal, even an habitual criminal, and leaving aside his Aboriginality, his likely drug-addled brain, his drug use, mental instability or mental issues - indeed all ameliorating things - even if he was a career criminal and a thug and druggie....what is the Police Minister's statement and actions really sugesting?
Is he suggesting that its OK to taser a criminal? That when you have a rap sheet longer than a script to Wager's Ring Cycle, that suddenly its OK to use a taser on a handcuffed man when he's on the floor and surrounded by 9 police officers, in a police station? What are you saying, Mr Johnson, that you can arbitrarily decide when it becomes OK to taser someone, indeed one may argue, torture someone?
Both these issues really, really concern me. There seems to be this point, in Western Australia, at which point you become a criminal, and are subjected to arbitrary physical violence, even outright torturous assault. That point is being moved farther and rarther to the point of mere suspicion, not even any longer to the point at which one has clearly propagated violence. Indeed, soon it seems, they won't even need suspicion in order to subject you to an invasion of your privacy, any resistance to which can be met with tasers.
When will come the day when the Police can simply taser you if they want a chat? It is arguably a hell of a lot closer than I feel comfortable with.
Hopefully people in W.A. have finally woken up to this. I've said recently the only difference between W.A. and Fiji is that in Fiji you can't have more than 5 people gather before its illegal. That's about it - and if that's not scary, then you are seriously a fuckwit.