Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Greens to Liberals on bikie laws: YAAAH BOOO SUCKS!

johnboy 24 June 2011 27

The Greens’ Shane Rattenbury is taking considerable pleasure in telling the Canberra Liberals “Told you so!” after the High Court of Australia threw out the NSW anti-bikie laws.

“In 2009 the Canberra Liberals argued strongly for the need for laws similar to those in NSW to be adopted in the ACT. They argued the Government needed the power to declare organisations to be criminal gangs and to ban their members from meeting” Mr Rattenbury said.

“The ACT has dodged a bullet because if we had gone down the same path as NSW, we would have ended up in the same situation where the High Court struck down our laws.

“The Greens were wary of such an approach and were concerned that it created guilt by association and was an attack on freedom of association.

“This ruling from the High Court vindicates the more considered approach adopted in the ACT.

“What the judgement says is that you cannot give judges the power to declare, without reasons, an organisation to be a criminal gang. That was held to be repugnant to the concept of judicial power because it conferred a non judicial function on the courts.” Shane Rattenbury said.

Six of the seven High Court judges ruled the NSW laws were repugnant to the concept of judicial independence under the Australian Constitution.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to
Greens to Liberals on bikie laws: YAAAH BOOO SUCKS!
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
The Frots 9:22 am 26 Jun 11

Pork Hunt said :

The Frots said:
“The law of conspiracy for example, as someone mentioned previously, can only apply when you have have evidence of the conspiracy.”

You have just shot yourself in the foot, have you not?

No evidence means you are not guilty.
Hanging around with your mates should not be illegal, even crims meet up for food and entertainment just as you and I do…

No evidence in no way means your not guilty or should I say not taking part in some illegal action – unless your talking about admissible evidence in a trial or legal proceedings. Many times suspects have been charged but the evidence has been insufficient to get them over the line at court. Hell, just look at some of the threads on here over the past few years!

But everyone has known they committed the offence – it’s just the rule of current evidence admissability wouldn’t allow certain evidence in.

In a way, it’s similar with this proposal. They are bringing in the old ‘consorting law’ re-worked for 2011.

Pork Hunt 9:30 pm 25 Jun 11

The Frots said:
“The law of conspiracy for example, as someone mentioned previously, can only apply when you have have evidence of the conspiracy.”

You have just shot yourself in the foot, have you not?

No evidence means you are not guilty.
Hanging around with your mates should not be illegal, even crims meet up for food and entertainment just as you and I do…

Bussie 7:18 pm 25 Jun 11

The Frots said :

Bussie said :

wooster said :

While some here might get caught up in arguments about poor analogies (tennis) and unsupported extrapolations (persecution of muslims/gays), I advise that those opposed to this legislation (in current or future form) better acquaint themselves with the truly vile ways of outlaw bikie gangs: from extortion and mafia style behaviour, through to drug peddling and outright murder.

Waah waah…moral panic…sook sook… Yeah some bikies sell drugs and kill people which are illegal in and of themselves. And in response to this we should cheer on the state being able to stop ANY group of people from associating with each other.

Do you think it’s a fairly big jump to go from banning OMCG’s to banning everyone? Or, more seriously, do you think it’s simply a normal transition to banning any two or more people meeting in the street or nywhere for that matter. Does that really make sense to you?

Really?

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my post, “any” probably wasn’t the best word to use.

I didn’t mean that the government would ban all groups of people from meeting rather that it could ban any particular group of people it chooses from meeting.

The Frots 6:23 pm 25 Jun 11

Bussie said :

wooster said :

While some here might get caught up in arguments about poor analogies (tennis) and unsupported extrapolations (persecution of muslims/gays), I advise that those opposed to this legislation (in current or future form) better acquaint themselves with the truly vile ways of outlaw bikie gangs: from extortion and mafia style behaviour, through to drug peddling and outright murder.

Waah waah…moral panic…sook sook… Yeah some bikies sell drugs and kill people which are illegal in and of themselves. And in response to this we should cheer on the state being able to stop ANY group of people from associating with each other.

Do you think it’s a fairly big jump to go from banning OMCG’s to banning everyone? Or, more seriously, do you think it’s simply a normal transition to banning any two or more people meeting in the street or nywhere for that matter. Does that really make sense to you?

Really?

dungfungus 5:34 pm 25 Jun 11

The ACT Government actively supports the bikies, well at least one group of them that is, as they accepted a business name registration (and the fee that has to be paid) from “REBELS M C CANBERRA INC”
(details available at ABN Lookup page).
I hope Rattenbury now shows them some “respect” while he converts them to use Harley Davison emission free electric motorcycles. Getting them to fit mufflers to their petrol ones would be a good start in the interim.
It’s a bit hard to associate bikies with criminals when even the police commissioner rides a noisy Harley.

Bussie 5:05 pm 25 Jun 11

wooster said :

While some here might get caught up in arguments about poor analogies (tennis) and unsupported extrapolations (persecution of muslims/gays), I advise that those opposed to this legislation (in current or future form) better acquaint themselves with the truly vile ways of outlaw bikie gangs: from extortion and mafia style behaviour, through to drug peddling and outright murder.

Waah waah…moral panic…sook sook… Yeah some bikies sell drugs and kill people which are illegal in and of themselves. And in response to this we should cheer on the state being able to stop ANY group of people from associating with each other.

The Frots 3:22 pm 25 Jun 11

BimboGeek said :

They’re just motorbike clubs, many of them completely unofficial and unregistered, much as I could get together with a few friends, get some jackets made up and call ourselves “The Bimbo Geeks.” If we rode bikes we could even make the local gangs our enemies!

Zeroing in on bikes doesn’t work because bikes are legal and plenty of clubs exist for people who ride them as hobbies. I’m all for banning The God Squad but that’s a job for the fashion police, not the regular ones.

So do you make just the naughty bikers illegal? Well you don’t know they’re naughty until you’ve caught them and found them guilty of all the naughty things they’ve done so that’s redundant. Plus there are plenty of bikers who like looking really badass by hanging out with criminals and would probably beat you up if you crossed them but actually make you feel safer when they’re around. And naughty people will infiltrate even the nicest group. Even some nice committee member at St John’s might secretly be doing charlie with underage hookers.

Actually why have I been seen with criminals? I never do anything naughty! Should I be in jail for egging them on?

Are you going to throw people in jail for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, too?

The whole thing is too complicated for me. I’m going back to my mimosa and glad that I can let a stranger buy me a drink without worrying that he might be a criminal. I need only fear further danger to my reputation!

Your reputation is safe with us. It is more complicated than simply saying ‘they are all bad’ and locking everyone up. But that’s not the design or the intent of the law. There are enough statistics and intelligence around to support the fact that some MCG’s are in fact ‘outlaw’ – and current laws are not effective. The law of conspiracy for example, as someone mentioned previously, can only apply when you have have evidence of the conspiracy. The proposed laws change that so that simply ‘gathering’ is sufficient for OMCG’s.

Some years ago we had a law of ‘consorting’ which was one of the most effective police ‘tools’ that they ever had. It was ‘abolished’ because of complaints by ‘civil libitarians/Greens/Vegans’ a to it being unfair to the criminals. Sadly, we continue to pay the price.

And we all probably know someone who is a criminal. Some of us have even ridden with OMCG’s previously but that doesn’t detract from the fact that some are OMCG’s with criminal intent. And not all members of these clubs are criminal either – some are simply there for the ‘ride’ so to speak.

And Thoroughly Smashed said – Never mind the rule of law or the constitution, eh? You’ve missed the point entirely.

The constitution was the basis of the appeal so yes, we should mind it! But the ‘rule of law’ is the issue to be changed which is what they are trying to do obviously. Laws change all the time (repealed, enacted, take your pick) so that part is nothing new.

Thoroughly Smashed 1:17 pm 25 Jun 11

Never mind the rule of law or the constitution, eh? You’ve missed the point entirely.

BimboGeek 1:01 pm 25 Jun 11

They’re just motorbike clubs, many of them completely unofficial and unregistered, much as I could get together with a few friends, get some jackets made up and call ourselves “The Bimbo Geeks.” If we rode bikes we could even make the local gangs our enemies!

Zeroing in on bikes doesn’t work because bikes are legal and plenty of clubs exist for people who ride them as hobbies. I’m all for banning The God Squad but that’s a job for the fashion police, not the regular ones.

So do you make just the naughty bikers illegal? Well you don’t know they’re naughty until you’ve caught them and found them guilty of all the naughty things they’ve done so that’s redundant. Plus there are plenty of bikers who like looking really badass by hanging out with criminals and would probably beat you up if you crossed them but actually make you feel safer when they’re around. And naughty people will infiltrate even the nicest group. Even some nice committee member at St John’s might secretly be doing charlie with underage hookers.

Actually why have I been seen with criminals? I never do anything naughty! Should I be in jail for egging them on?

Are you going to throw people in jail for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, too?

The whole thing is too complicated for me. I’m going back to my mimosa and glad that I can let a stranger buy me a drink without worrying that he might be a criminal. I need only fear further danger to my reputation!

wooster 1:05 am 25 Jun 11

Libertarianism is predicated on a set of shared norms, not merely the absence of government intervention into the private affairs of individuals.
Despite the freedom of association (notably more of a fiction we import from US television than any legal basis in Aust), there is not just scope, but also a moral imperative, to protect society from organised crime.
Despite arguments above to the contrary, the NSW legislation was designed to create new avenues to prosecute those involved in gangs whose sole purpose is a criminal one.
Regrettably, this is a form of organised crime which has hijacked motorcycling as its most prominent outward symbol. Make no mistake though, this legislation was directed towards those who are truly despicable criminals of the lowest order.

The greens, sadly, live in a cocoon. They misunderstand the principles they purportedly support and, in fact, are an embarrassment to their apparent target audience — the educated middle-class. While some here might get caught up in arguments about poor analogies (tennis) and unsupported extrapolations (persecution of muslims/gays), I advise that those opposed to this legislation (in current or future form) better acquaint themselves with the truly vile ways of outlaw bikie gangs: from extortion and mafia style behaviour, through to drug peddling and outright murder.

bigfeet 11:21 pm 24 Jun 11

The Frots said :

The ‘spirit’ of the legislation was simple – to combat OMCG’s and their illegal activities.

As you say…”their illegal activities”

If the ‘activities’ they are committing are already illegal , why do we need more legislation?

Isn’t conspiracy to commit a crime already an offence? So if people are gathering to plan crimes, or to organise crimes they are already breaking the law.

I can see a case for more enforcement of existing legislation, or more use of surveillance or other detection powers by the police or crime agencies, or perhaps harsher penalties for the current laws.

Guilt by association alone is a dangerous path to tread.

Bussie 9:02 pm 24 Jun 11

The Frots said :

Do you really think that ‘gays’ or ‘muslims’ would be outlawed……………………….I mean, really??? The ‘spirit’ of the legislation was simple – to combat OMCG’s and their illegal activities.

While it’s unlikely that gays or muslims would be outlawed the NSW laws allowed the police to apply to a judge to outlaw any group. Said group would only find out after the fact. If you think groups of citizens should be able to be banned from associating with each other by state fiat good for you but I’d rather not live in a police state thanks.

ImagineThat 7:45 pm 24 Jun 11

The Frots said :

Waiting For Godot said :

… It is not an exaggeration to say that such laws could have easily be extended to cover other unpopular minority groups such as gays and Muslims.

This is a great decision for freedom and liberty. Just because you don’t like certain people doesn’t mean you can bring in laws against them.

Do you really think that ‘gays’ or ‘muslims’ would be outlawed……………………….I mean, really??? The ‘spirit’ of the legislation was simple – to combat OMCG’s and their illegal activities.

I think there is an inherent danger in ‘opening the door’. Even though sensible people might today reasonably believe certain things are not in the ‘spirit’ of a piece of legislation, is that protection enough? Say in 10 years the people with the power to enforce the legislation don’t recall what the ‘spiriit’ of the legislation was way back in the teens when it was enacted it, then what?

Because I am a gay, muslim who rides my motorbike to tennis, should I be worried? (Tongue in cheek, people!)

Tthere are already laws in place to cover criminal activity. Perhaps we need more effort to enforce existing criminal law rather than introducing new ones which won’t adequately protect the innocent.

The Frots 7:27 pm 24 Jun 11

Thoroughly Smashed said :

The Frots said :

Just using it as an example. As far as I know, tennis is still legal.

Perhaps a more convincing example would have lent more weight to what you were saying?

Well, perhaps……………………………………

Pork Hunt 7:24 pm 24 Jun 11

Totally agree with Waiting For Godot.

There are enough laws in this country already to deal with any threat from any criminal organisation at the moment.

In fact the current laws we have should be able to deal with any aspect of our daily lives.

New technology from time to time will require amendments or additions to existing laws. Examples from the past include computer crime or mobile phone cameras in change rooms etc….

Thoroughly Smashed 4:57 pm 24 Jun 11

The Frots said :

Just using it as an example. As far as I know, tennis is still legal.

Perhaps a more convincing example would have lent more weight to what you were saying?

The Frots 4:45 pm 24 Jun 11

aceofspades said :

Sean said :

“In the meantime of course, do the Greens have a solution to the issue………………???”

What issue?

The issue that Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs consider themselves above the law and continue to break it in order to terrorise the community for benefit to only themselves with little or no reprimand.

Thank God – I thought it was just me for a second!!

Mysteryman 4:01 pm 24 Jun 11

That made more sense in my brain 🙁 I blame lack of sleep.

The Frots 3:47 pm 24 Jun 11

Waiting For Godot said :

The NSW legislation was a knee-jerk reaction following the Sydney Airport killing, egged on by The Daily Telegraph. It was modelled on similar South Australian laws written up by the attorney-general in that state who also held out against liberalising the censorship laws relating to computer games.

The anti-bikie laws were never going to stand up to serious legal or moral scrutiny. They attempted to stop a minority group associating with their peers. It is not an exaggeration to say that such laws could have easily be extended to cover other unpopular minority groups such as gays and Muslims.

This is a great decision for freedom and liberty. Just because you don’t like certain people doesn’t mean you can bring in laws against them.

Do you really think that ‘gays’ or ‘muslims’ would be outlawed……………………….I mean, really??? The ‘spirit’ of the legislation was simple – to combat OMCG’s and their illegal activities.

Mysteryman 3:46 pm 24 Jun 11

I’m very glad that the greens are taking the time to make statements about situations that didn’t occur years ago. Perhaps they could also find time to comment on the Illuminati, and the faking of the moon landing.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site