Comments on: Bikie gangs and the law

By: FDB

FDB — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:59:35 +0000

You make a compelling case, andy.

By: andy

andy — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:56:44 +0000

first of all. even is the most retarded person I’ve heard of in a while he obviously loves fachism and/or communism, why doesn’t he go live in china? second of all these laws are ridiculous, sign my petition http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Bikie_Laws

By: Evan

Evan — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:21:02 +0000

Well at least we can all be sure that the Hells Angels have all the dosh they need to fund the inevitable High Court Challenge.

It will be about the only worthwhile and socially responsible thing they’ve ever done.

By: David Irving (no relation)

David Irving (no relation) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:58:48 +0000

Evan, to misquote slightly, “First they came for the bikies, but because I was not a bikie, I didn’t care … ”

I don’t think I need to continue.

By: MH

MH — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:43:12 +0000

One can only assume that the passing of this type of legislation means that the police forces have failed, crime commissions have failed and crime legislation has failed OR we are blighted by elected representatives who are so collectively stupid historically ignorant and intellectually lazy they know not what they do. Had these buffoons had the collective will to all pass RICOH type legislation a decade ago then they would have had the laws to deal with organised criminals and other forms of racketeers, they did not. You would want to hope that bananas in pjamas don’t get accused of being a perverted criminal gang preying on children, but then you would never know would you?

By: Quoll

Quoll — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:16:06 +0000

Actually Evan I really think the more laws and tough talk only serves to fuel the kind of social environment that ‘bikie’ types (a simplistic generalisation?) can thrive in.
Upping the ‘ante’ only makes life more suitable for knuckleheads, the extremely devious and psychopaths, on both sides of the law.
.
Force begets force.
Action elicits reaction.
Attempts to enforce ‘order’ manifests disorder.
.
The tighter the grasping the more what you wish to hold slips between your fingers.
The complete inability of the Stasi to forsee their own demise over a period of days, despite almost impossible surveillance and widespread use of fear for decades, is a recent example of how delusional ‘social enforcement’ is in the end. With many hurt and damaged in the process.
Fear and intimidation works, until the point where it no longer does and people have nothing else left to lose.
It’s complete myth that humans can control others through orders or any means.
As long as the social contract makes life for the most part better, easier and more satisfactory, most people will buy in. When it’s not, some folks will go shopping elsewhere.
.
Old Lao Tzu got it right years ago

“A state may be ruled by (measures of) correction; weapons of
war may be used with crafty dexterity; (but) the kingdom is made one’s
own (only) by freedom from action and purpose.
.
How do I know that it is so? By these facts:–In the kingdom the
multiplication of prohibitive enactments increases the poverty of the
people; the more implements to add to their profit that the people
have, the greater disorder is there in the state and clan; the more
acts of crafty dexterity that men possess, the more do strange
contrivances appear; the more display there is of legislation, the
more thieves and robbers there are.”
—–
Collateral damage amongst the ‘innocent’ (naive?) seems always the most common outcome of ‘wars’ declared.

By: Evan

Evan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:00:12 +0000

Look fellas, I’m with you on the civil liberties cause, I really am. But fer fuxsakes pick the “victim” on which to rally the cause with a bit more discrimination, will you? Something that’s going to resonate, that’s the ticket.

Like the next poor schmuck to get busted here at a G-20 Summit, or perhaps some Planet Warrior banged-up for protesting a bit too vigourously at Gunns’ latest outrage. Whatever. But please, whatever you do, don’t nail the colours to the mast of one of the biggest criminal enterprises currently operating in the country and then expect all and sundry to salute. Ain’t gonna happen.

“Saving the Bikies” just hasn’t got the traction, I’m afraid.

By: Evan

Evan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:38:34 +0000

No Jacques, you’re the one not paying attention if you think the population give a toss about what happens to bikie gangs and their members.

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:33:01 +0000

Evan;

You’re not paying attention. We already have laws for dealing with bikies and organised crime. These new laws will be applied to anyone and everyone, are odious, poorly designed and will not solve the underlying problem.

You indirectly hit on the best and most important reform in talking about Chicago during the 30s. That was the time of the Prohibition.

By: Evan

Evan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:16:28 +0000

Principles are fine. I’m all for principles.

But I also like living in a society where we don’t have a criminal bikie underworld running a nationwide drugs manufacturing business and “rubbing-out” the competition (and anyone who looks like squealing on them) like it was Chicago, circa 1930.

These guys are bad news. They’re the worst kind of criminal scum. And I for one won’t be shedding too many tears if these laws are used to crush them.

Misuse of such laws is another matter.

If and when the coppers start using such laws to try and stomp-out political protests and discourse or to lock people-up for reading the wrong newspaper or for eating their ice-cream the wrong way or whatever, I’ll join you lot on the barricades.

But until then, I’m buggered if I will stand shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of crims such as these and protest their right to get-on about their business without this sort of legislation. They don’t give a toss about civil liberties. To them, this legislation is just a bit of unwarranted interference in the free market.

The free drugs market, that is.