Our glorious fuhrer Campbell Newman is building a special stalag for people who ride motorcycles in groups:
Qld anti-bikie laws include:
Extra powers for CMC
Bikie-only prison at Woodford, north of Brisbane
Mandatory sentences of 15 years for serious crimes committed as part of gang activity, on top of the normal penalty
Club office bearers will be sentenced to another 10 years in jail, and parole will only be granted if the offender cooperates with police
Convicted bikies subjected to strict drug tests and searches in prison
No gym facilities or TV access in jail
Phone calls in jail to be monitored, except those relating to legal reps
Inmates' mail opened and censored
Visitor contact restricted to one hour a week
Bikie criminals in other state prisons to be transferred to Woodford
Introducing a licensing regime for tattoo parlours and artists, banning bikie gang members
Motorcycles to be crushed as punishment for certain crimes
My heart bleeds for those poor bikers. If only the had the choice of not being violent criminal kents :rolleyes:
Today Tonight.. is that you?
Ignorant idealist, yeah thats you.
well no, having actually having grown up in QLD and mainly on the GC, where these rules are mostly made for,i know violent criminal bikies, and i know non violent non-criminal bikies. much to the surprise of the blue-rinse set cowering behind their TV, they exist in equal measure.
the criminal ones deserve to be locked up, and the non-criminals will be swept up in these laws. If you think that's fine, well we disagree on what constitutes basic civil liberties in a supposedly free society.
Yeah, there gunna just round up everyone on a bike & lock them up forever. You seem to be the one cowering at the fear of these laws. How that fark can any of that effect non-criminal biker clubs or individual bikers? The whole idea is that it makes the punishment for those who commit crimes as part of their association with criminal bikie gangs face higher sanctions. Its not outlawing motorcycle ownership or riding. Its giving the police more power to attack criminal gangs (which just happen to hide behind bike ridding clubs) & the criminal justice system more ways to punish crimes. If you CHOOSE to commit crimes in connection with a criminal bikie gang then I don't give a stuff about your idea of civil liberties. This is not now nor will it ever be a free society, we have laws & those who break them should face the loss of liberties.
Even the govt admits they are not just broad laws for only bad criminals, but a 'catch all' on anyone who rides motorcyles in groups. It's populist policy rushed through on the back of media driven public panic by a govt with such a massive majority they weren't even able to be questioned as government moves to bypass the normal committee process . No submissions to help ensure fairness. It's Bjekle-Peterson era all over again. Whilst Newman says he 'like' to see a sunset clause, so the laws are removed when they are no longer needed , criminal laws on statute are never removed. If they are the you-beaut criminal only laws just targeting only true criminals why would you need mention to remove them? isnt a crime always a crime? well as Newman knows , not when it's over-reaching and picking up more than it should.
Huh? Which part of what you originally posted in any way shape or form will have any effect on all bike riders? The changes you listed ONLY effect people who commit other existing crimes. None of that is new laws only increased powers & sanctions for existing crimes. If you break the existing laws as part of an organised crime syndicate dressed up as a motorcycle club then you will face extra sanctions, a designated prison, & reduced liberties. You keep trying to make this about all bikers to try to paint it as a broad attack on society. Its NOT, its a targeted attack on the scumbag criminals who hide behind the protection of a motorcycle club. The clubs they will be targeting are criminal organisations not recreational riders. If you don't commit a crime while part of a motorcycle gang then how will it effect you? The mention of a sunset clause is the grandstanding part of it. Its designed to suggest that these changes will permanently end all criminal bikie gangs & therefore wont be needed longer term.
Here's a really radical idea, how about you pack away the paranoia for a change & see how the changes, once implimented, actually pan out. If non-criminals are being rounded up in 'stalags' & having their bikes burnt at the stake then I will join you in protest. If, as I suspect, the changes mearly impose some extra hardship on a small amount of criminals who deserve it anyway then perhaps you might consider that it wasn't actually worth your moral outrage.
Never met a more simple bunch of people than some of the motorcycle gangs that came through the bar that I used to work at. Fail to see how the cops can’t shake these guys down, no real “criminal masterminds” from what I saw.
Never met a more simple bunch of people than some of the motorcycle gangs that came through the bar that I used to work at. Fail to see how the cops can't shake these guys down, no real "criminal masterminds" from what I saw.
There is huge difference between the cannon foder that the public generally sees, and the guys at the top. The guys at the top wear suits more than their colours, and drive their Benz's way more than they ride their Harleys. They are the ones that have to be pulled down. The rank and file thugs really just fight each other mainly.
Our glorious fuhrer Campbell Newman is building a special stalag for people who ride motorcycles in groups:
Qld anti-bikie laws include:
Extra powers for CMC
Bikie-only prison at Woodford, north of Brisbane
Mandatory sentences of 15 years for serious crimes committed as part of gang activity, on top of the normal penalty
Club office bearers will be sentenced to another 10 years in jail, and parole will only be granted if the offender cooperates with police
Convicted bikies subjected to strict drug tests and searches in prison
No gym facilities or TV access in jail
Phone calls in jail to be monitored, except those relating to legal reps
Inmates' mail opened and censored
Visitor contact restricted to one hour a week
Bikie criminals in other state prisons to be transferred to Woodford
Introducing a licensing regime for tattoo parlours and artists, banning bikie gang members
Motorcycles to be crushed as punishment for certain crimes
My heart bleeds for those poor bikers. If only the had the choice of not being violent criminal kents :rolleyes:
Today Tonight.. is that you?
Ignorant idealist, yeah thats you.
well no, having actually having grown up in QLD and mainly on the GC, where these rules are mostly made for,i know violent criminal bikies, and i know non violent non-criminal bikies. much to the surprise of the blue-rinse set cowering behind their TV, they exist in equal measure.
the criminal ones deserve to be locked up, and the non-criminals will be swept up in these laws. If you think that's fine, well we disagree on what constitutes basic civil liberties in a supposedly free society.
Yeah, there gunna just round up everyone on a bike & lock them up forever. You seem to be the one cowering at the fear of these laws. How that fark can any of that effect non-criminal biker clubs or individual bikers? The whole idea is that it makes the punishment for those who commit crimes as part of their association with criminal bikie gangs face higher sanctions. Its not outlawing motorcycle ownership or riding. Its giving the police more power to attack criminal gangs (which just happen to hide behind bike ridding clubs) & the criminal justice system more ways to punish crimes. If you CHOOSE to commit crimes in connection with a criminal bikie gang then I don't give a stuff about your idea of civil liberties. This is not now nor will it ever be a free society, we have laws & those who break them should face the loss of liberties.
Even the govt admits they are not just broad laws for only bad criminals, but a 'catch all' on anyone who rides motorcyles in groups. It's populist policy rushed through on the back of media driven public panic by a govt with such a massive majority they weren't even able to be questioned as government moves to bypass the normal committee process . No submissions to help ensure fairness. It's Bjekle-Peterson era all over again. Whilst Newman says he 'like' to see a sunset clause, so the laws are removed when they are no longer needed , criminal laws on statute are never removed. If they are the you-beaut criminal only laws just targeting only true criminals why would you need mention to remove them? isnt a crime always a crime? well as Newman knows , not when it's over-reaching and picking up more than it should.
Huh? Which part of what you originally posted in any way shape or form will have any effect on all bike riders? The changes you listed ONLY effect people who commit other existing crimes. None of that is new laws only increased powers & sanctions for existing crimes. If you break the existing laws as part of an organised crime syndicate dressed up as a motorcycle club then you will face extra sanctions, a designated prison, & reduced liberties. You keep trying to make this about all bikers to try to paint it as a broad attack on society. Its NOT, its a targeted attack on the scumbag criminals who hide behind the protection of a motorcycle club. The clubs they will be targeting are criminal organisations not recreational riders. If you don't commit a crime while part of a motorcycle gang then how will it effect you? The mention of a sunset clause is the grandstanding part of it. Its designed to suggest that these changes will permanently end all criminal bikie gangs & therefore wont be needed longer term.
Here's a really radical idea, how about you pack away the paranoia for a change & see how the changes, once implimented, actually pan out. If non-criminals are being rounded up in 'stalags' & having their bikes burnt at the stake then I will join you in protest. If, as I suspect, the changes mearly impose some extra hardship on a small amount of criminals who deserve it anyway then perhaps you might consider that it wasn't actually worth your moral outrage.
For what it's worth, while the laws may be TARGETED at bikies, it seems that there's no actual language in the legislation that limits it to them. The exact wording of the definition of 'association' under the legislation is:
1) a corporation
2) an unincorporated association
3) a club or league
4) any other group of 3 or more people by whatever name they be called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal
Nothing about bikes or anything. Just 'groups of people, legal or illegal'. Hell, FAMILIES could come under the definition as written here. Sporting clubs would certainly qualify. Political parties, businesses.
So that's basically any group at all. The obvious ones that the Qld govt will be trying to sneaklity target under the terms of the law would be environmental protestors who trespass or picket or similar, but the definitions are horrendously wide.
This is ridiculously broadly-written and repressive stuff. Ye gods.
Our glorious fuhrer Campbell Newman is building a special stalag for people who ride motorcycles in groups:
Qld anti-bikie laws include:
Extra powers for CMC
Bikie-only prison at Woodford, north of Brisbane
Mandatory sentences of 15 years for serious crimes committed as part of gang activity, on top of the normal penalty
Club office bearers will be sentenced to another 10 years in jail, and parole will only be granted if the offender cooperates with police
Convicted bikies subjected to strict drug tests and searches in prison
No gym facilities or TV access in jail
Phone calls in jail to be monitored, except those relating to legal reps
Inmates' mail opened and censored
Visitor contact restricted to one hour a week
Bikie criminals in other state prisons to be transferred to Woodford
Introducing a licensing regime for tattoo parlours and artists, banning bikie gang members
Motorcycles to be crushed as punishment for certain crimes
My heart bleeds for those poor bikers. If only the had the choice of not being violent criminal kents :rolleyes:
Today Tonight.. is that you?
Ignorant idealist, yeah thats you.
well no, having actually having grown up in QLD and mainly on the GC, where these rules are mostly made for,i know violent criminal bikies, and i know non violent non-criminal bikies. much to the surprise of the blue-rinse set cowering behind their TV, they exist in equal measure.
the criminal ones deserve to be locked up, and the non-criminals will be swept up in these laws. If you think that's fine, well we disagree on what constitutes basic civil liberties in a supposedly free society.
Yeah, there gunna just round up everyone on a bike & lock them up forever. You seem to be the one cowering at the fear of these laws. How that fark can any of that effect non-criminal biker clubs or individual bikers? The whole idea is that it makes the punishment for those who commit crimes as part of their association with criminal bikie gangs face higher sanctions. Its not outlawing motorcycle ownership or riding. Its giving the police more power to attack criminal gangs (which just happen to hide behind bike ridding clubs) & the criminal justice system more ways to punish crimes. If you CHOOSE to commit crimes in connection with a criminal bikie gang then I don't give a stuff about your idea of civil liberties. This is not now nor will it ever be a free society, we have laws & those who break them should face the loss of liberties.
Even the govt admits they are not just broad laws for only bad criminals, but a 'catch all' on anyone who rides motorcyles in groups. It's populist policy rushed through on the back of media driven public panic by a govt with such a massive majority they weren't even able to be questioned as government moves to bypass the normal committee process . No submissions to help ensure fairness. It's Bjekle-Peterson era all over again. Whilst Newman says he 'like' to see a sunset clause, so the laws are removed when they are no longer needed , criminal laws on statute are never removed. If they are the you-beaut criminal only laws just targeting only true criminals why would you need mention to remove them? isnt a crime always a crime? well as Newman knows , not when it's over-reaching and picking up more than it should.
Huh? Which part of what you originally posted in any way shape or form will have any effect on all bike riders? The changes you listed ONLY effect people who commit other existing crimes. None of that is new laws only increased powers & sanctions for existing crimes. If you break the existing laws as part of an organised crime syndicate dressed up as a motorcycle club then you will face extra sanctions, a designated prison, & reduced liberties. You keep trying to make this about all bikers to try to paint it as a broad attack on society. Its NOT, its a targeted attack on the scumbag criminals who hide behind the protection of a motorcycle club. The clubs they will be targeting are criminal organisations not recreational riders. If you don't commit a crime while part of a motorcycle gang then how will it effect you? The mention of a sunset clause is the grandstanding part of it. Its designed to suggest that these changes will permanently end all criminal bikie gangs & therefore wont be needed longer term.
Here's a really radical idea, how about you pack away the paranoia for a change & see how the changes, once implimented, actually pan out. If non-criminals are being rounded up in 'stalags' & having their bikes burnt at the stake then I will join you in protest. If, as I suspect, the changes mearly impose some extra hardship on a small amount of criminals who deserve it anyway then perhaps you might consider that it wasn't actually worth your moral outrage.
For what it's worth, while the laws may be TARGETED at bikies, it seems that there's no actual language in the legislation that limits it to them. The exact wording of the definition of 'association' under the legislation is:
1) a corporation
2) an unincorporated association
3) a club or league
4) any other group of 3 or more people by whatever name they be called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal
Nothing about bikes or anything. Just 'groups of people, legal or illegal'. Hell, FAMILIES could come under the definition as written here. Sporting clubs would certainly qualify. Political parties, businesses.
So that's basically any group at all. The obvious ones that the Qld govt will be trying to sneaklity target under the terms of the law would be environmental protestors who trespass or picket or similar, but the definitions are horrendously wide.
This is ridiculously broadly-written and repressive stuff. Ye gods.
Lol. Reminds me of the Jo days in Qld when any gathering of more than 3 people was legally an illegal demonstration. Nothing changes in Qld. Beautiful one day, trampled by the loony right the next.
Our glorious fuhrer Campbell Newman is building a special stalag for people who ride motorcycles in groups:
Qld anti-bikie laws include:
Extra powers for CMC
Bikie-only prison at Woodford, north of Brisbane
Mandatory sentences of 15 years for serious crimes committed as part of gang activity, on top of the normal penalty
Club office bearers will be sentenced to another 10 years in jail, and parole will only be granted if the offender cooperates with police
Convicted bikies subjected to strict drug tests and searches in prison
No gym facilities or TV access in jail
Phone calls in jail to be monitored, except those relating to legal reps
Inmates' mail opened and censored
Visitor contact restricted to one hour a week
Bikie criminals in other state prisons to be transferred to Woodford
Introducing a licensing regime for tattoo parlours and artists, banning bikie gang members
Motorcycles to be crushed as punishment for certain crimes
My heart bleeds for those poor bikers. If only the had the choice of not being violent criminal kents :rolleyes:
Today Tonight.. is that you?
Ignorant idealist, yeah thats you.
well no, having actually having grown up in QLD and mainly on the GC, where these rules are mostly made for,i know violent criminal bikies, and i know non violent non-criminal bikies. much to the surprise of the blue-rinse set cowering behind their TV, they exist in equal measure.
the criminal ones deserve to be locked up, and the non-criminals will be swept up in these laws. If you think that's fine, well we disagree on what constitutes basic civil liberties in a supposedly free society.
Yeah, there gunna just round up everyone on a bike & lock them up forever. You seem to be the one cowering at the fear of these laws. How that fark can any of that effect non-criminal biker clubs or individual bikers? The whole idea is that it makes the punishment for those who commit crimes as part of their association with criminal bikie gangs face higher sanctions. Its not outlawing motorcycle ownership or riding. Its giving the police more power to attack criminal gangs (which just happen to hide behind bike ridding clubs) & the criminal justice system more ways to punish crimes. If you CHOOSE to commit crimes in connection with a criminal bikie gang then I don't give a stuff about your idea of civil liberties. This is not now nor will it ever be a free society, we have laws & those who break them should face the loss of liberties.
Even the govt admits they are not just broad laws for only bad criminals, but a 'catch all' on anyone who rides motorcyles in groups. It's populist policy rushed through on the back of media driven public panic by a govt with such a massive majority they weren't even able to be questioned as government moves to bypass the normal committee process . No submissions to help ensure fairness. It's Bjekle-Peterson era all over again. Whilst Newman says he 'like' to see a sunset clause, so the laws are removed when they are no longer needed , criminal laws on statute are never removed. If they are the you-beaut criminal only laws just targeting only true criminals why would you need mention to remove them? isnt a crime always a crime? well as Newman knows , not when it's over-reaching and picking up more than it should.
Huh? Which part of what you originally posted in any way shape or form will have any effect on all bike riders? The changes you listed ONLY effect people who commit other existing crimes. None of that is new laws only increased powers & sanctions for existing crimes. If you break the existing laws as part of an organised crime syndicate dressed up as a motorcycle club then you will face extra sanctions, a designated prison, & reduced liberties. You keep trying to make this about all bikers to try to paint it as a broad attack on society. Its NOT, its a targeted attack on the scumbag criminals who hide behind the protection of a motorcycle club. The clubs they will be targeting are criminal organisations not recreational riders. If you don't commit a crime while part of a motorcycle gang then how will it effect you? The mention of a sunset clause is the grandstanding part of it. Its designed to suggest that these changes will permanently end all criminal bikie gangs & therefore wont be needed longer term.
Here's a really radical idea, how about you pack away the paranoia for a change & see how the changes, once implimented, actually pan out. If non-criminals are being rounded up in 'stalags' & having their bikes burnt at the stake then I will join you in protest. If, as I suspect, the changes mearly impose some extra hardship on a small amount of criminals who deserve it anyway then perhaps you might consider that it wasn't actually worth your moral outrage.
For what it's worth, while the laws may be TARGETED at bikies, it seems that there's no actual language in the legislation that limits it to them. The exact wording of the definition of 'association' under the legislation is:
1) a corporation
2) an unincorporated association
3) a club or league
4) any other group of 3 or more people by whatever name they be called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal
Nothing about bikes or anything. Just 'groups of people, legal or illegal'. Hell, FAMILIES could come under the definition as written here. Sporting clubs would certainly qualify. Political parties, businesses.
So that's basically any group at all. The obvious ones that the Qld govt will be trying to sneaklity target under the terms of the law would be environmental protestors who trespass or picket or similar, but the definitions are horrendously wide.
This is ridiculously broadly-written and repressive stuff. Ye gods.
Yep.
We've seen the exact same laws knocked back here, pretty sure it was for unruly teens though.
'A game of doubles tennis' was used to describe what would apply under the law.
Gangs have been around forever. My Dad told me about the Fitzroy Push, his gang in the years before WWII.
Not ethic then, often religious based, mostly to do with economics though.
And yeh, in the 1960 and 70's, the Broady Boys thought they were tough, but the Boys from Preston and Sunshine had their measure. I was happy to run and hide, and never get in their way.
Our glorious fuhrer Campbell Newman is building a special stalag for people who ride motorcycles in groups:
Qld anti-bikie laws include:
Extra powers for CMC
Bikie-only prison at Woodford, north of Brisbane
Mandatory sentences of 15 years for serious crimes committed as part of gang activity, on top of the normal penalty
Club office bearers will be sentenced to another 10 years in jail, and parole will only be granted if the offender cooperates with police
Convicted bikies subjected to strict drug tests and searches in prison
No gym facilities or TV access in jail
Phone calls in jail to be monitored, except those relating to legal reps
Inmates' mail opened and censored
Visitor contact restricted to one hour a week
Bikie criminals in other state prisons to be transferred to Woodford
Introducing a licensing regime for tattoo parlours and artists, banning bikie gang members
Motorcycles to be crushed as punishment for certain crimes
My heart bleeds for those poor bikers. If only the had the choice of not being violent criminal kents :rolleyes:
Today Tonight.. is that you?
Ignorant idealist, yeah thats you.
well no, having actually having grown up in QLD and mainly on the GC, where these rules are mostly made for,i know violent criminal bikies, and i know non violent non-criminal bikies. much to the surprise of the blue-rinse set cowering behind their TV, they exist in equal measure.
the criminal ones deserve to be locked up, and the non-criminals will be swept up in these laws. If you think that's fine, well we disagree on what constitutes basic civil liberties in a supposedly free society.
Yeah, there gunna just round up everyone on a bike & lock them up forever. You seem to be the one cowering at the fear of these laws. How that fark can any of that effect non-criminal biker clubs or individual bikers? The whole idea is that it makes the punishment for those who commit crimes as part of their association with criminal bikie gangs face higher sanctions. Its not outlawing motorcycle ownership or riding. Its giving the police more power to attack criminal gangs (which just happen to hide behind bike ridding clubs) & the criminal justice system more ways to punish crimes. If you CHOOSE to commit crimes in connection with a criminal bikie gang then I don't give a stuff about your idea of civil liberties. This is not now nor will it ever be a free society, we have laws & those who break them should face the loss of liberties.
Even the govt admits they are not just broad laws for only bad criminals, but a 'catch all' on anyone who rides motorcyles in groups. It's populist policy rushed through on the back of media driven public panic by a govt with such a massive majority they weren't even able to be questioned as government moves to bypass the normal committee process . No submissions to help ensure fairness. It's Bjekle-Peterson era all over again. Whilst Newman says he 'like' to see a sunset clause, so the laws are removed when they are no longer needed , criminal laws on statute are never removed. If they are the you-beaut criminal only laws just targeting only true criminals why would you need mention to remove them? isnt a crime always a crime? well as Newman knows , not when it's over-reaching and picking up more than it should.
Huh? Which part of what you originally posted in any way shape or form will have any effect on all bike riders? The changes you listed ONLY effect people who commit other existing crimes. None of that is new laws only increased powers & sanctions for existing crimes. If you break the existing laws as part of an organised crime syndicate dressed up as a motorcycle club then you will face extra sanctions, a designated prison, & reduced liberties. You keep trying to make this about all bikers to try to paint it as a broad attack on society. Its NOT, its a targeted attack on the scumbag criminals who hide behind the protection of a motorcycle club. The clubs they will be targeting are criminal organisations not recreational riders. If you don't commit a crime while part of a motorcycle gang then how will it effect you? The mention of a sunset clause is the grandstanding part of it. Its designed to suggest that these changes will permanently end all criminal bikie gangs & therefore wont be needed longer term.
Here's a really radical idea, how about you pack away the paranoia for a change & see how the changes, once implimented, actually pan out. If non-criminals are being rounded up in 'stalags' & having their bikes burnt at the stake then I will join you in protest. If, as I suspect, the changes mearly impose some extra hardship on a small amount of criminals who deserve it anyway then perhaps you might consider that it wasn't actually worth your moral outrage.
For what it's worth, while the laws may be TARGETED at bikies, it seems that there's no actual language in the legislation that limits it to them. The exact wording of the definition of 'association' under the legislation is:
1) a corporation
2) an unincorporated association
3) a club or league
4) any other group of 3 or more people by whatever name they be called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal
Nothing about bikes or anything. Just 'groups of people, legal or illegal'. Hell, FAMILIES could come under the definition as written here. Sporting clubs would certainly qualify. Political parties, businesses.
So that's basically any group at all. The obvious ones that the Qld govt will be trying to sneaklity target under the terms of the law would be environmental protestors who trespass or picket or similar, but the definitions are horrendously wide.
This is ridiculously broadly-written and repressive stuff. Ye gods.
My point is though that there is nothing that makes 3 bike riders or 3 chess club nerds getting together illegal. What the legislation appears to be doing is saying that if you get togther as a group to organise crime then you can be subject to harsher penalties than individuals.
If it has the side effect of also locking up professional protestors who break the law then all the better!
First they came for the bikies, but I didn't speak out for I was not a bikie. Then they came for the "professional protestors" but I did not speak out... etc etc
First they came for the bikies, but I didn't speak out for I was not a bikie. Then they came for the "professional protestors" but I did not speak out... etc etc
I can understand why you're nervous. Richmond scum is next in line of the blights on society. :P
For what it's worth, while the laws may be TARGETED at bikies, it seems that there's no actual language in the legislation that limits it to them. The exact wording of the definition of 'association' under the legislation is
1) a corporation
2) an unincorporated association
3) a club or league
4) any other group of 3 or more people by whatever name they be called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal
Nothing about bikes or anything. Just 'groups of people, legal or illegal'. Hell, FAMILIES could come under the definition as written here. Sporting clubs would certainly qualify. Political parties, businesses.
So that's basically any group at all. The obvious ones that the Qld govt will be trying to sneaklity target under the terms of the law would be environmental protestors who trespass or picket or similar, but the definitions are horrendously wide.
This is ridiculously broadly-written and repressive stuff. Ye gods.
My point is though that there is nothing that makes 3 bike riders or 3 chess club nerds getting together illegal. What the legislation appears to be doing is saying that if you get togther as a group to organise crime then you can be subject to harsher penalties than individuals.
If it has the side effect of also locking up professional protestors who break the law then all the better!
Quotes are ■■■■■■, but anyway...
You're still basically saying 'the innocent have nothing to fear' which is not quite true, since the extra surveillance powers granted to the cops will be applicable to anyone in a designated organisation, guilty or innocent. And likewise the extra restrictions on prisoners will be applied to people detained before their trial, not just those found guilty after trial.
If I believed it would lock up, without fear or favour, members of organisation who did illegal things, then it might be different. But it won't Nobody from Securency will be prosecuted under these laws, for instance. Nor will anyone from Leighton, or the AWB, despite those organisations being thoroughly involved in long-term criminal conduct. Or for that matter any of the scumbags who've run things like the Health Services Union as their personal piggy bank for the past couple of decades. These powers will be justified as being reserved for use against big scary bikies that make little old ladies afraid to step out of the house on the way to bowls on a Sunday morning, but they'll actually be used against political or environmental protestors. Any member of a genuinely bad bikie gang who's been a genuine scumbag already has done more than enough to be locked up for a decade or two. There are ALREADY laws against and solid punishments for assault, drug trafficking/manufacture, etc etc etc. New laws aren't needed, just the prosecution and enforcement of existing ones.
This is not about cracking down on bikies, it's primarily about making Newman look tough, and secondarily about frightening people. Chilling effects and all that. A victorian analogy would be the people protesting the East-West tunnel link. Arrest a couple for trespass, declare the protest a criminal organisation, then threaten the lot with 10+ years in bikie jail as members of a criminal organisation.
It's the selectivity and the power that the govt is granting itself that's the most frightening. Declaring an organisation to be criminal is basically at the whim of the govt, and once that's happened, long mandatory sentences are hanging over everyone's head. No checks or balances. It's basically govenmental SLAPP, enforced in law.
For what it's worth, while the laws may be TARGETED at bikies, it seems that there's no actual language in the legislation that limits it to them. The exact wording of the definition of 'association' under the legislation is
1) a corporation
2) an unincorporated association
3) a club or league
4) any other group of 3 or more people by whatever name they be called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal
Nothing about bikes or anything. Just 'groups of people, legal or illegal'. Hell, FAMILIES could come under the definition as written here. Sporting clubs would certainly qualify. Political parties, businesses.
So that's basically any group at all. The obvious ones that the Qld govt will be trying to sneaklity target under the terms of the law would be environmental protestors who trespass or picket or similar, but the definitions are horrendously wide.
This is ridiculously broadly-written and repressive stuff. Ye gods.
My point is though that there is nothing that makes 3 bike riders or 3 chess club nerds getting together illegal. What the legislation appears to be doing is saying that if you get togther as a group to organise crime then you can be subject to harsher penalties than individuals.
If it has the side effect of also locking up professional protestors who break the law then all the better!
Quotes are ******, but anyway...
You're still basically saying 'the innocent have nothing to fear' which is not quite true, since the extra surveillance powers granted to the cops will be applicable to anyone in a designated organisation, guilty or innocent. And likewise the extra restrictions on prisoners will be applied to people detained before their trial, not just those found guilty after trial.
If I believed it would lock up, without fear or favour, members of organisation who did illegal things, then it might be different. But it won't Nobody from Securency will be prosecuted under these laws, for instance. Nor will anyone from Leighton, or the AWB, despite those organisations being thoroughly involved in long-term criminal conduct. Or for that matter any of the scumbags who've run things like the Health Services Union as their personal piggy bank for the past couple of decades. These powers will be justified as being reserved for use against big scary bikies that make little old ladies afraid to step out of the house on the way to bowls on a Sunday morning, but they'll actually be used against political or environmental protestors. Any member of a genuinely bad bikie gang who's been a genuine scumbag already has done more than enough to be locked up for a decade or two. There are ALREADY laws against and solid punishments for assault, drug trafficking/manufacture, etc etc etc. New laws aren't needed, just the prosecution and enforcement of existing ones.
This is not about cracking down on bikies, it's primarily about making Newman look tough, and secondarily about frightening people. Chilling effects and all that. A victorian analogy would be the people protesting the East-West tunnel link. Arrest a couple for trespass, declare the protest a criminal organisation, then threaten the lot with 10+ years in bikie jail as members of a criminal organisation.
It's the selectivity and the power that the govt is granting itself that's the most frightening. Declaring an organisation to be criminal is basically at the whim of the govt, and once that's happened, long mandatory sentences are hanging over everyone's head. No checks or balances. It's basically govenmental SLAPP, enforced in law.
So do you think that people who support extra penalties for criminal bikies don't also support tougher treatment of professional protestors? FFS I hold the 2 as being of equal value to society (none) & I reckon if Newman wanted to he would simply introduce new measure designed specifically for protestors. I think you are showing a massive level of paranoia. Do you have any evidence at all to support this conspiracy theory? Why exactly would Newman or any other Gvt use bikers as a diversionary cover to secretly target protestors when IMHO attacking professional protestors would be as if not more popular.
As you say there are already laws but what I'm reading here is that these new proposals are not new crimes, only new punishments for organised crime, new powers of investigation & the establishment of a seperate prison facility with harsher conditions. Until I can see even 1 remote example of somebody who doesn't deserve this extra treatment then I will continue to believe that your "worst possible misuse scenario" is no more than the longest bow possible. How about we wait & see how it is actually implimented before declaring its abuse & see if it has any effect on organised crime before its condemned as cospiracy.
Do you really think there's anything like a significant number of 'professional protestors' out there? 'Professional' means that they do it for a living. Who do you think these people ARE? Who pays them? Cos frankly I haven't seen any evidence they exist at all. More likely the term was just invented by some ponytailed sunglasses-wearing cocaine-snorting PR/lobbying/crisis-management dipshit as a way of discrediting grassroots protests. Complete invented boogeyman as far as I can tell.
I believe that the legislation will be abused by govt/law enforcement because stuff like this always is. Go have a look at a list of the organisations that, for instance, ASIO/ASIS has spied on over the years. The frigging world wildlife fund is one of them I'm pretty sure, ffs. All sorts of social justice organisations. Unions. Political parties. For no legit reason, just because the powers were available and someone in the organisation thought they could earn brownie points by picking on one of the enemies of the govt of the day, or else the govt of the day thought 'hey, these guys are annoying, i'll sic ASIO on them' and ASIO did just what they were told. This is not because security forces, police, or even politicians are inherently worse than anyone else, it's just that power in whatever form will always be abused, so no body (law enforcement or otherwise) should have more power than is absolutely necessary to do their job.
And while the might be no new crimes defined if you look at it incredibly narrowly, in effect there is. What this basically does is add 10 years in prison onto any penalty you might recieve if you've so much as kept minutes at a meeting of an organisation deemed 'criminal'. So, keep a contact list on your computer of people who want to protest the development of such-and-such, and if you then get arrested for trespass, then suddenly you're an 'office holder' and instead of getting 24 hours in the slammer you'll get a MANDATORY 10 years + 24 hours. And yes, a judge can reduce the 24 hours to a fine etc at their option, but I don't think there's any scope to reduce the 10 years for any reason whatsoever.
This is a ■■■■, clumsy, brute-force law that will be completely ineffective at tackling the people it's supposed to be aimed at, yet has incredible potential for abuse if brought to bear by this or future governments against political targets of opportunity.
Do you really think there's anything like a significant number of 'professional protestors' out there? 'Professional' means that they do it for a living. Who do you think these people ARE? Who pays them? Cos frankly I haven't seen any evidence they exist at all. More likely the term was just invented by some ponytailed sunglasses-wearing cocaine-snorting PR/lobbying/crisis-management dipshit as a way of discrediting grassroots protests. Complete invented boogeyman as far as I can tell.
I believe that the legislation will be abused by govt/law enforcement because stuff like this always is. Go have a look at a list of the organisations that, for instance, ASIO/ASIS has spied on over the years. The frigging world wildlife fund is one of them I'm pretty sure, ffs. All sorts of social justice organisations. Unions. Political parties. For no legit reason, just because the powers were available and someone in the organisation thought they could earn brownie points by picking on one of the enemies of the govt of the day, or else the govt of the day thought 'hey, these guys are annoying, i'll sic ASIO on them' and ASIO did just what they were told. This is not because security forces, police, or even politicians are inherently worse than anyone else, it's just that power in whatever form will always be abused, so no body (law enforcement or otherwise) should have more power than is absolutely necessary to do their job.
And while the might be no new crimes defined if you look at it incredibly narrowly, in effect there is. What this basically does is add 10 years in prison onto any penalty you might recieve if you've so much as kept minutes at a meeting of an organisation deemed 'criminal'. So, keep a contact list on your computer of people who want to protest the development of such-and-such, and if you then get arrested for trespass, then suddenly you're an 'office holder' and instead of getting 24 hours in the slammer you'll get a MANDATORY 10 years + 24 hours. And yes, a judge can reduce the 24 hours to a fine etc at their option, but I don't think there's any scope to reduce the 10 years for any reason whatsoever.
This is a ****, clumsy, brute-force law that will be completely ineffective at tackling the people it's supposed to be aimed at, yet has incredible potential for abuse if brought to bear by this or future governments against political targets of opportunity.
So basically its just the vibe & a basless claim that it will be abused because "stuff like this always is". Come on, you still haven't addressed the question of why the hell would they try to hide this agenda when a very open agenda of attacking protestors would garner widespread support. Why not just introduce increased penalties & mandatory sentencing for protestors who destroy property or injure others as part of any organised protest. Why not simply introduce tougher measures against protestors who infringe the rights of others in their protests or indeed simply increase the penalties & definitions of trespass?
You say "no body (law enforcement or otherwise) should have more power than is absolutely necessary to do their job" but you then ignore the reality that these criminal organisations have flourished under the current environment. By what possible measure can you conclude that the current level of power is more or less than nessesary? I'm not claiming either way, I'm saying lets see if this helps or if it in fact does get abused rather than simply falling back on the default possition of it must be bad. What I know is that bikie related crime is an issue & increasingly the general public is being caught up in the violence. Police have not been able to make any meaningful impact on the criminal activities involved. Newman is obviously exploiting these facts to appear a strong leader but maybe just maybe this may be a positive step. Will locking up bikers for longer when convicted of serious crimes be a positive - yes. Does half a rope make a cowboy - no. Potential is a dirty word. Potentially any law, any power could be abused. It doesn't mean we should simply abandon laws & reforming them.
You have basically taken a quantum leap of doubt without really anything but fear to support it. Like I said IF you can ever provide a single solitary example of these measures actually being abused then we can discuss. Until then I have no sympathy for organised criminals in whatever guise they choose. NO I don't think professional protestors are numerous but I believe they absolutely do exists. You may not like the term "rofessional protestor" or "rent a crowd" & it may not be strictly correct (they are not employed to protest) but they do simply go from protest to protest to organise disruptions, property damage, assaults & violent cohersion tactics. See Anthony Main as an example of what I would deem as a professional protestor. Then take a drive up to Tecoma & see further examples at the McDonalds. Thats is of course if you actually do want to see evidence. I'm sure you know they exists.
Our glorious fuhrer Campbell Newman is building a special stalag for people who ride motorcycles in groups:
Qld anti-bikie laws include:
Extra powers for CMC
Bikie-only prison at Woodford, north of Brisbane
Mandatory sentences of 15 years for serious crimes committed as part of gang activity, on top of the normal penalty
Club office bearers will be sentenced to another 10 years in jail, and parole will only be granted if the offender cooperates with police
Convicted bikies subjected to strict drug tests and searches in prison
No gym facilities or TV access in jail
Phone calls in jail to be monitored, except those relating to legal reps
Inmates' mail opened and censored
Visitor contact restricted to one hour a week
Bikie criminals in other state prisons to be transferred to Woodford
Introducing a licensing regime for tattoo parlours and artists, banning bikie gang members
Motorcycles to be crushed as punishment for certain crimes
My heart bleeds for those poor bikers. If only the had the choice of not being violent criminal kents :rolleyes:
Today Tonight.. is that you?
Ignorant idealist, yeah thats you.
well no, having actually having grown up in QLD and mainly on the GC, where these rules are mostly made for,i know violent criminal bikies, and i know non violent non-criminal bikies. much to the surprise of the blue-rinse set cowering behind their TV, they exist in equal measure.
the criminal ones deserve to be locked up, and the non-criminals will be swept up in these laws. If you think that's fine, well we disagree on what constitutes basic civil liberties in a supposedly free society.
Yeah, there gunna just round up everyone on a bike & lock them up forever. You seem to be the one cowering at the fear of these laws. How that fark can any of that effect non-criminal biker clubs or individual bikers? The whole idea is that it makes the punishment for those who commit crimes as part of their association with criminal bikie gangs face higher sanctions. Its not outlawing motorcycle ownership or riding. Its giving the police more power to attack criminal gangs (which just happen to hide behind bike ridding clubs) & the criminal justice system more ways to punish crimes. If you CHOOSE to commit crimes in connection with a criminal bikie gang then I don't give a stuff about your idea of civil liberties. This is not now nor will it ever be a free society, we have laws & those who break them should face the loss of liberties.
Even the govt admits they are not just broad laws for only bad criminals, but a 'catch all' on anyone who rides motorcyles in groups. It's populist policy rushed through on the back of media driven public panic by a govt with such a massive majority they weren't even able to be questioned as government moves to bypass the normal committee process . No submissions to help ensure fairness. It's Bjekle-Peterson era all over again. Whilst Newman says he 'like' to see a sunset clause, so the laws are removed when they are no longer needed , criminal laws on statute are never removed. If they are the you-beaut criminal only laws just targeting only true criminals why would you need mention to remove them? isnt a crime always a crime? well as Newman knows , not when it's over-reaching and picking up more than it should.
Huh? Which part of what you originally posted in any way shape or form will have any effect on all bike riders? The changes you listed ONLY effect people who commit other existing crimes. None of that is new laws only increased powers & sanctions for existing crimes. If you break the existing laws as part of an organised crime syndicate dressed up as a motorcycle club then you will face extra sanctions, a designated prison, & reduced liberties. You keep trying to make this about all bikers to try to paint it as a broad attack on society. Its NOT, its a targeted attack on the scumbag criminals who hide behind the protection of a motorcycle club. The clubs they will be targeting are criminal organisations not recreational riders. If you don't commit a crime while part of a motorcycle gang then how will it effect you? The mention of a sunset clause is the grandstanding part of it. Its designed to suggest that these changes will permanently end all criminal bikie gangs & therefore wont be needed longer term.
Here's a really radical idea, how about you pack away the paranoia for a change & see how the changes, once implimented, actually pan out. If non-criminals are being rounded up in 'stalags' & having their bikes burnt at the stake then I will join you in protest. If, as I suspect, the changes mearly impose some extra hardship on a small amount of criminals who deserve it anyway then perhaps you might consider that it wasn't actually worth your moral outrage.
For what it's worth, while the laws may be TARGETED at bikies, it seems that there's no actual language in the legislation that limits it to them. The exact wording of the definition of 'association' under the legislation is:
1) a corporation
2) an unincorporated association
3) a club or league
4) any other group of 3 or more people by whatever name they be called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal
Nothing about bikes or anything. Just 'groups of people, legal or illegal'. Hell, FAMILIES could come under the definition as written here. Sporting clubs would certainly qualify. Political parties, businesses.
So that's basically any group at all. The obvious ones that the Qld govt will be trying to sneaklity target under the terms of the law would be environmental protestors who trespass or picket or similar, but the definitions are horrendously wide.
This is ridiculously broadly-written and repressive stuff. Ye gods.
.....and yet still somewhat less repressive than Vlad and the AFL and their disrepute rule.
I didn’t think you could get more extreme JB, but you are really on a roll tonight.
These new laws are not really new. Fascist Governments and a few Communist ones, hate groups, especially those that defy their laws like Bikies and Greenpeace. In the case of Bikies, the laws will never get used as Police already have enough clout if they choose to use it.
The issue the is more concerning is that by your reasoning Greenpeace and those idealists in their boats, cruising around disrupting those Japo whalers, are the ultimate Professional Protestors, organizing disruption, property damage, assaults and violent tactics, as well as breaking numerous laws of the sea, and should be tossed in jail. While I reckon most of us think they all mad, but doing a great job.
And back in the day, I spent days at protests over the Vietnam War, maybe not so professional but we broke a lot of laws along the way, and in the end we won.