ALS: thoughts on freedom

Australian Libertarian Society Blog

Guilty Of Association

The Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Bill 2007 has recently been introduced by the Rann government here in SA. Here’s just one of the exciting new powers they’re granting themselves:

Under the laws, scheduled to be debated next week in the House of Assembly, South Australians who have contact with bikies at least six times a year will face a minimum maximum of five years in jail.

Yes, you did read that correctly.

UPDATE: Suddenly remembering that mass media is usually about as accurate as a drunk, blindfolded darts player, I went and read the legislation for myself. The five years in jail is a maximum penalty, not minimum, and certain kinds of associations – e.g. lawful business associations – are disregarded. Here is the relevant section in full:

35—Criminal associations
(1) A person who associates, on not less than 6 occasions during a period of 12 months, with a person who is—
(a) a member of a declared organisation; or
(b) the subject of a control order,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(2) A person does not commit an offence against subsection (1) unless, on each occasion on which it is alleged that the person associated with another, the person knew that the other was—
(a) a member of a declared organisation; or
(b) a person the subject of a control order,
or was reckless as to that fact.
(3) A person who—
(a) has a criminal conviction (against the law of this State or another jurisdiction) of a kind prescribed by regulation; and
(b) associates, on not less than 6 occasions during a period of 12 months, with another person who has such a criminal conviction,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(4) A person does not commit an offence against subsection (3) unless, on each occasion on which it is alleged that the person associated with another, the person knew that the other had the relevant criminal conviction or was reckless as to that fact.
(5) A person may be guilty of an offence against subsection (1) or (3) in respect of associations with the same person or with different people.
(6) The following forms of associations will be disregarded for the purposes of this section unless the prosecution proves that the association was not reasonable in the circumstances:
(a) associations between close family members;
(b) associations occurring in the course of a lawful occupation, business or profession;
(c) associations occurring at a course of training or education of a prescribed kind between persons enrolled in the course;
(d) associations occurring at a rehabilitation, counselling or therapy session of a prescribed kind;
(e) associations occurring in lawful custody or in the course of complying with a court order;
(f) associations of a prescribed kind.

You can parse this yourself, but here is my reading of it:

- It is a criminal offence to be friends with members of “declared organisations” (i.e. bikie gangs)
- It is a criminal offence for criminals (convicted of ANY felony, if I’m reading this correctly) to be friends with each other.

Still pretty outrageous, then.

February 9, 2008 Posted by | Civil liberties, Politics | 11 Comments

Pervert Brought To Justice

Exposing oneself to someone is usually considered an unwanted sexual advance and is frowned upon, so it’s good to see a debauched individual from Lancashire, in the UK, brought to justice.

What irks me is the pathetic excuses he used to try to justify his depraved behaviour. Like, say, the fact that he was in his own home at the time and exposed to people only because they were peering in his windows:

A 46-year-old Longridge man who indecently exposed himself in a window of his home has been given a conditional discharge.

Blackburn magistrates heard that Peter Thompson was twice seen by a neighbour and on the second occasion she was with her partner who also saw him totally naked.

Thompson, of Preston Road, pleaded not guilty to two charges of indecently exposing himself but was convicted after a trial.

He was given a conditional discharge for two years and ordered to pay £200 compensation and £400 costs.

But truly, the Law is merciful:

Because the level of sentence was below a community order Thompson does not have to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register.

That’s the trouble with judges these days, never throwing the book at ‘em.

January 5, 2008 Posted by | General, International | 3 Comments

US Tax Dollars At Work

Ohio’s crack law-enforcement squadron have come up with an innovative way to create catch criminals:

Robin Garrison, an off-duty 42-year-old firefighter, was walking in Berliner Park in Columbus, Ohio, in May when he saw a woman sunbathing topless under a tree.

He approached her and they started talking and getting comfortable, the woman smiling and resting her foot on his shoulder at one point.

Eventually, she asked to see Garrison’s penis; he unzipped his pants and complied.

HA! GOTCHA!

Seconds later, undercover police officers pulled up in a van and arrested Garrison; he was later charged with public indecency, a misdemeanor, based on video footage taken by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park. While topless sunbathing is legal in the city’s parks, exposing more than that is against the law.

So remember, next time a half-naked woman rubs up against you and asks to see your penis, RUN AWAY. It’s probably just a test.

December 29, 2007 Posted by | General | 6 Comments

….And The Pursuit Of Keeping Other People Alive

I’m a bit late to the party on this one, but it’s pretty astonishing. Republican Presidential candidate and professional charlatan Mitt Romney, explaining why needing warrants to tap your phone is a pre-9/11 mindset:

Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive.

Memorably phrased, isn’t it?

December 29, 2007 Posted by | General | 7 Comments

Wait, WHAT?

“I’m going to be honest with you—I don’t know a lot about Cuba’s healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?”

- Presidential candidate John Edwards, in response to a question about whether the US should adopt a Cuba-style healthcare system.

August 22, 2007 Posted by | International, Politics | 8 Comments

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Cato Institute fellow Daniel Mitchell has a piece here comparing the Bush presidency unfavourably to the Clinton presidency. I won’t quote the article because it is a detailed piece that deserves to be read in full.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for libertarianism in America. Whatever one’s views on Iraq, it certainly didn’t represent a philosophy of decreasing the level of state power. About the only positive thing on the Bush Jr. record, from a libertarian point of view, is the tax cuts. Unfortunately the cuts were fuelled by enormous budget deficits and a looming fiscal crisis thanks to Social Security.

The article makes the point that Clinton’s record would have been a lot worse had he not had to deal with a hostile Congress. If I were a betting man, which I am, my money would be on either Obama or Clinton to capture the White House in 2008. With Democrats in charge of Congress, we are unlikely to see things get any better from a fiscal point of view. At least the social conservatives might get squashed back into the hole from whence they came.

Speaking of the ascendancy of the Democrats, does anyone have links to any of the myriad articles and posts I remember reading from a couple of years ago about how the Democrats were a hollow shell of a party on the verge of catastrophic collapse? I’ve been Googling, but so far without success.

March 19, 2007 Posted by | International, Politics | 11 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers