As the case against Mohamed Haneef falls apart via the Keystone bungling of the AFP, NSW cabinet has granted NSW police extended powers to be able to collect DNA samples from anyone arrested for any crime, not just more serious crimes such as murder or sexual assault.
Anti-terrorism has been invoked to justify these measures but Moroney’s attempt to defend the new laws against civil liberty concerns via a dazzling, emotive non sequitur is, well moronic:
I hear oppositions that these are breaches or potential breaches of civil liberties,” Mr Moroney said. “Let me say this, every police officer … [has] to be concerned about the civil liberties of everybody – not just a small few. We have to be concerned about the civil liberty of being able to leave your car on the street without it being stolen.
“I’ve got to be concerned about the civil liberty of not having your house broken into when you leave it. I’ve got to be concerned about the ultimate civil liberty of being able to go about your business … without being assaulted, or the ultimate breach of civil liberties … murder. And so I dismiss these issues.
This doesn’t explain how collecting DNA will prevent such crimes. The inference is that having the DNA samples (as well as increased identification checks when buying a SIM card) will help eliminate suspects which is very different from Moroney’s bizarre concept of civil liberties used to justify the new and unnecessary powers.
“or the ultimate breach of civil liberties … murder”
A bankrupt argument. It enables any civil liberty to be revoked under the aegis of preventing theoretical murders.
I can’t believe the police wrote on a potentially crucial piece of evidence. I notice on another blog, someone who says they read the transcript thoroughly suggests that what happened is that the interviewing officer had photocopies of diary pages, which had been annotated, and was just confused.
Throughout all this the main culprit is not cops or government – however out of their depth, or scared to balance liberties with risks – but the media. That they could launch into ‘terror plot’ headlines on the weekend, without checking their ‘source’ with the AFP hierarchy, suggests a shock-jock like drive to scandalise.
Maybe Moroney has been reading Minority Report.
moroney has read ’1984′ and grasped that it is a good instruction manual.
before you denigrate his plus good efforts to simplify prole life, you should ask what you can do to help him: just continue talking instead of resisting will be good enough.
I dunno. You could use DNA but I think that turning up to a crime scene while the suspects are still leisurely wandering around the neighbourhood might work just as well.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mugging-victims-furious-with-police/2007/07/20/1184559996951.html
I wouldn’t be too hard on the police. They’re just looking for ways to make their jobs easier and meet the expectations of the government to be seen to be tough on crime.
It’s the politicians who deserve censure for recklessly feeding the notion that we’re in the grip of an escalating crisis of lawlessness that can only be resolved by frequent increases in the number of crimes, the severity of sentences and the powers given to the police.
Next step will be random monitoring of telephone calls … I mean why not? If you’re not planning anything illegal you’ve got nothing to worry about.
This shows why governments should start giving police greater powers by giving them greater skills.
They say potato. We say potahto.
Or should that be “They say apples. We say oranges”?
Ben P,
You are right. Your comment is off topic. Duly moderated.
Thanks Shaun.
Now it’s ME who looks like the nutball.
The answer is obvious: line up all 22 million Australians and take their DNA. Put all the results on a data bank which all police forces can access.
Problem solved!
“And so I dismiss these issues…..”
You can’t blame a copper for thinking like a copper.
By the way, the “clear-up” rate for the SS, when they were policing pre-war Nazi Germany was terrific. Very few serious crimes were left unsolved and it was certainly safe to park your car and walk down the street at night.
Provided, of course, you weren’t Jewish, Leftie, Gay, mentally or physically disabled etc etc, it was a wonderully safe place to live.
I just love it when the cops start telling us what our civil liberties ought to be. Unregulated phone tapping, DNA….no doubt Dr.Haneef’s DNA will turn up somewhere in ‘evidence’just like the SIM card…
The first thing I thought of when I read Moroney’s remarks this morning was a scene in The Dark Knight Returns. Batman tosses a suspect through a window, and then threatens further violence. When the man complains that he has rights, he gets this response: “You’ve got rights. Lots of rights. Sometimes I count them just to make myself feel crazy.”
It’s the classic authoritarian response: we’ve all got rights, but some of us deserve them more than others. Adn if you violate someone else’s rights, you automatically lose all of your own …
Unless what you’re doing is somehow sanctioned by the state.
Moroney’s case is the classic “only the guilty have anything to fear”. It’s a position that, I’m happy to say, most police I’ve met don’t necessarily agree with (although it seems to be one that many of them come to over time). It’s a position which has a certain, simplistic appeal, bolstered these days by technology which seems to facilitate more certain determinations of guilt or innocence. The guys on CSI never get it wrong, after all.
But it’s a position which recognises little right to privacy (and does so by invoking a Greater Good) and has a shaky relationship, at best, with the presumption of innocence. And it’s a position which requires us to put a more absolute trust in the hands of very human and – as the Haneef case has shown – very fallible police.
And just in case you’ve forgotten, Commissioner, here’s the magic words: “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Assert that one person’s rights are greater or lesser than another’s, and the whole thing falls down.
No one has mentioned yet that Morons comments involving the false dichtomy of rights versus security paralleled with that bout of frenetic nonsense from Iemma, beating up on the “flaw” revealed (for politicians) in the road tested detention laws, eg bail by a magistrate.
Answer, get rid of all workable bail mechanisms.
Do some folk here realise that the “terrism” stuff is actually gaining traction for Howard in some opinion polls?
Is the meanness and stupidity of the government exceeded by the cowardice of the Labor party and large sections of the community?
The big problem with the DNA idea is most crimes can be committed without leaving any of your DNA at the scene.
I think inserting micro chips with GPS positioning systems in criminals (and all Muslims of course) would be a much better idea!
Seriously why has their been such an increase in the number of pollies going bonkers in the last week.
Screaming “terror” or “crime” is no excuse for going nuts
Paul, you’re not wrong. This smacks of Beazley backing down on the Tampa issue; the ALP allows the government to set the agenda and says “We’re right behind you!” rather than sticking up for the rights, due process and the rule of law. Rudd may just be avoiding a political wedge but abandoning your morals (and the cornerstones of liberal democracy) to try and win an election is a spineless thing to do.
Funny, I thought that I’d covered all these points previously. Must have been a dream or I’ve been channelling Moroney – the ‘ey’ is silent.
Well, Ronald Raygun, it has been a disappointing day as to Labor, apart from a lone hand from Beatty.
The wimmen running a blog thread on subjects similar last week would be in raptures over the oral anal lubrication exercise performed by Rudd on the CFMEU, down in Tasmania today in front of Adams ( tongue in cheek here, of course! ).
As with many, I have spent over a decade awaiting deliverance through a long cold political winter ( no pun intended , Anna )and when the miracle draws close it is not rescue from Howardism but the arrival of a botoxed version OF the same wretched thing?
Paul – Howard-lite, IF we’re really, rilly lucky. T’rifc!
so how come no one wants direct election of ministers, and a constitution written by citizen initiative?
apparently, because ozzies are feudal serfs with forelock firmly in hand when politics are discussed.
alternatively, because ozzies are perpetual adolescents who expect the ‘grown-ups’ in canberra to look after them. this in spite of consistent evidence that pollies are amoral mefirsters who are good at nothing but self promotion.
if you vote for politicians, and are disappointed, and vote for politicians, and are disappointed, and vote for politicians, and are disappointed- it’s not the pollies that are the weak link.