Police a bit rich
Hrrrfm. The Age didn't publish my letter:
I find it a bit rich that the police union are upset that information
alongside a photograph was distributed about one of their members, without
his consent. I understand that truth is not not considered a defence to
libel in Australia, so it was perhaps unwise to distribute such a photo.
But it is common police practice to photograph protesters without our
consent, and to store these photos with profiles in national databases
without a right of appeal or review. I probably find myself on some
watchlist now just for attending some of last night's Occupy Melbourne
general assembly.
Maybe there would be no need for a photograph to be distributed if police
correctly wore their own name badges (and if the name badges weren't
deliberately too small to read). Or if there was some accountability, as
opposed to the protectionism that police have demonstrated in the past
with the likes of their disgusting behaviour at the APEC protests.
I find it a bit rich that the police union are upset that information
alongside a photograph was distributed about one of their members, without
his consent. I understand that truth is not not considered a defence to
libel in Australia, so it was perhaps unwise to distribute such a photo.
But it is common police practice to photograph protesters without our
consent, and to store these photos with profiles in national databases
without a right of appeal or review. I probably find myself on some
watchlist now just for attending some of last night's Occupy Melbourne
general assembly.
Maybe there would be no need for a photograph to be distributed if police
correctly wore their own name badges (and if the name badges weren't
deliberately too small to read). Or if there was some accountability, as
opposed to the protectionism that police have demonstrated in the past
with the likes of their disgusting behaviour at the APEC protests.