- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, November 23, 2009

Creeping police state


Police join forces in booze crackdown
Police are piggy-backing on an Australian sting and will be using covert methods to nab violent drunks in a two-day operation. But they have laid out exactly when they are going to swoop, and what they are going to do to catch out-of-control drinkers. The move is as much to raise awareness about the problems associated with alcohol, estimated to cost Kiwis $5.3 billion a year, as to get offenders behind bars. Police in Australia and New Zealand announced the crackdown, codenamed Operation Unite, yesterday. Thousands of extra police officers will be deployed in main centres in both countries on December 11 and 12. The operation will involve using CCTV footage and random breath-testing to catch offenders.

I’m sorry, random stop and search powers? If you are behind the wheel of a car, we all get that the Police have the power to stop you and test you, but just wandering around on foot? Stop and Search powers and no outcry because it’s aimed at drunk youth?

This is a trend that is developing with the Police to try and push their luck and haven’t we seen a spate of that occur with their new powers?

I thought it was sweet that the Police were quick to point out they bugged the immigrant parents of a dead baby to get their conviction (that way you won’t be concerned with the new surveillance powers they are trying to quietly gain) and the new asset seizure powers during ‘Operation Cobra’

…won’t concern anyone because it’s aimed at filthy dirty drug people who are probably gang members and of course no right to silence even if you are a defence lawyer like Chris Comeskey.

Oh and how about those instant punishment powers the Police are set to get alongside ludicrous drug driving powers AMENDED FROM (that the Drug Foundation rolled over for)TO (that the Drug Foundation were used as justification) and the taking of your DNA for mere suspicion.

Don’t worry NZ, the Police state is aimed at immigrant baby killers, gang members, drunk stoned youth and defence lawyers so we don’t need to worry or demand checks and balances over our perfect Police force.

Drunk, unruly police punished
Police officers have turned up to work drunk, sped unnecessarily in police cars, and while off duty have unlawfully used their police ID, and been charged with assault. Information released to The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act reveals that 51 officers have been disciplined so far this year. Twenty were stood down while being investigated and 17 faced criminal charges.

Oh and let’s remind ourselves, why drug driving is bullshit?

Okay, here’s the drill, the Police will be able to take your blood by force to test you for drugs, here’s the problem.

1: The test is completely subjective, only the most naive police cheerleader or Greg O’Conner would pretend that the Police won’t abuse this subjective power. If you think I’m wrong, get up from your computer right now and do the heel toe, heel toe walk. You will be surprised by how hard that walk actually is, that’s one of the ;subjective tests’. When you are breathalyzed the machine makes an objective scientific decision on your impairment, but under this test some cop decides if you have passed or not. We all know it won’t be the rich white guy in his rich white car that will get asked to do the test, we all know who the bloody cops will be dragging out onto the street to fail this subjective bullshit drift net law.

2: Okay so you’ve failed this bullshit subjective test that the cop man decides if you pass or not, so what now? The Police can forcibly take your blood, so what happens then? Because there is no ‘impairment’ level for marijuana, and because THC can stay in your system for months, a joint you smoked last week will turn up in these tests, meaning you will fail the test EVEN THOUGH you are not under the influence of weed. This is not about impairment, this then becomes a tool to arrest people based on THC levels in their blood which could be days or weeks old. See how that doesn’t work? It’s about impairment right, not what’s in your system that’s not impairing your driving ability.

(here’s the come back, you’ll love it)

“But weed is illegal and you shouldn’t be smoking it anyway” – AHA! See it’s not about impairment, it’s about arresting people for having a joint out of sight of the state and getting punished for it. Just what our overcrowded prison nation needs, more people thrown in prison for smoking a joint and getting caught with THC in your system even if that THC hasn’t impaired your driving abilities which is the original excuse to take your blood in the first place.

Remember – this ill thought out bullshit was rammed through with zero oversight and zero public scrutiny, thanks to National abusing Parliamentary process again.

Why is the new evidential threshold changes so bad?

Why is everyone cheering the removal of sacrosanct legal powers that protect the individual? Where the hell are the anonymous right wing on line mafia SCREAMING about the attacks on property rights?

Let me slowly explain for my fellow sheep what’s actually happening. The State when it faces off against an individual HAS to do so within certain powers, the evidential threshold for example is ‘BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT’ – let’s just say those 3 words again to force that point…

BEYOND

REASONABLE

DOUBT


…everyone got that? These new sweeping unprecedented powers mean that the Police don’t need to meet beyond reasonable doubt any longer as an evidential threshold. NOW it’s only BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES that’s right, the full power of the State can be used against you on the same level as a citizen facing off against another citizen, this perversion of law refuses to recognize that the individual has to have protections around them so that the State can’t simply walk all over them, and lowering the evidential threshold to balance of probabilities does this.

I know what you are going to say NZ, here’s what you are going to say

“So fucking what you dirty filthy lefty bitch! It’s all aimed at da gangs, da gangs so who cares”.

And here is where the mainstream media have done such a poor job, because has anyone actually read the definition by the Police of who a gang is? Has anyone actually read the law that was rammed through without anyone reading it?

See the perception is that it’s all da gangs, da gangs when that is absolute bullshit. A gang, as defined by the bloody Police, and this is the definition that triggers all these new surveillance powers to allow the Cops to break into your home and plant spy cameras without a warrant AND triggers these new powers of asset seizure IS 3 PEOPLE!

That’s right folks, as defined by the Police ‘a gang’ is just 3 people, here’s the law

"As per the "Gangs and Organised Crime Bill 10-2 (2009)" dictates: Every person commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who participates in an organised criminal group—

*

“(a) knowing that 3 or more people share any 1 or more of the objectives (the particular objective or particular objectives) described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) (whether or not the person himself or herself shares the particular objective or particular objectives); and

*

“(b) either knowing that his or her conduct contributes, or being reckless as to whether his or her conduct may contribute, to the occurrence of any criminal activity; and

*

“(c) either knowing that the criminal activity contributes, or being reckless as to whether the criminal activity may contribute, to achieving the particular objective or particular objectives of the organised criminal group.”


IT’S NOT AIMED AT THE GANGS AT ALL YOU MORONS – it can just be 3 bloody people who know eachother. Under this law, Me and my co-bloggers planning a protest action could fall foul of this Police definition, you all think it’s just da gangs da gangs, but the law is MUCH broader in its definition.

We have just given the Police an enormous expansion of power without knowing what that involves and without any public discussion at all. So stupid are we as a country that we will blindly erode century long legal protections around the power of the State and the rights of the individual if it’s wrapped up as something to attack da gangs, da gangs.

And why is allowing the Police to take your DNA on mere suspicion a bad idea?

Here is the list of offences that now allows the Police the excuse to remove by force your DNA…

List of offences which replaces "indictable offence" in previous version;
Part 3
Offences Provision of Act
Animal Welfare Act 1999
Wilful ill-treatment of animals ... Read more
section 28
Arms Act 1983
Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose
section 45
Unlawful possession of pistol or restricted weapon section 50
Unlawful carriage or possession in public place of firearm, airgun, pistol, ammunition, explosive, or restricted weapon
section 54(2)
Carrying firearm, airgun, pistol, imitation firearm, restricted weapon, ammunition, or explosive with criminal intent section 55
Crimes Act 1961
Indecent act in public place
section 125
Indecent act with intent to insult or offend
section 126
Aggravated assault
section 192
Assault with intent to injure
section 193
Male assaults female
section 194(b)
Cruelty to a child
section 195
Disabling
section 197
Possession of offensive weapons or disabling substances
section 202A
Assault with weapon
section 202C
Receiving (if the value of the property does not exceed $1,000)
section 246
Threatening acts
section 308
Land Transport Act 1998
Contravention of section 7 or section 22
involving injury or death
section 36
Person in charge of motor vehicle causing injury or death
section 61
Summary Offences Act 1981
Peeping or peering into dwellinghouse


See how these new expansion of what the Police can take your DNA for is so much wider than has been pretended?

If you are convicted of a serious crime, you should be forced to hand over your DNA, but to hand over your DNA on mere arrest, ON MERE SUSPICION?

You can take my DNA from my dead cold hands John Key. I will refuse to hand over my DNA, and I urge all NZers to point blank refuse to hand over their DNA. Make the pricks take it by force and then complain to the UN because this is a breach of our human rights, even National’s own Attorney General told them that.

The Maori party pointed it out …

Young men 'will fight back' against police, says Maori party

..and we should all adopt that approach.

Oh – and let’s not forget the new surveillance powers the Police are trying to pass that will allow ALL state departments to break into your home, plant spy cameras and film you without judicial oversight.

Remember – all this ill thought out bullshit was rammed through with zero oversight and zero public scrutiny, thanks to National abusing Parliamentary process again.

If you plant the seeds of a Police State, don’t be surprised when it starts growing. You have been conned and easily led once again.

15 Comments:

At 23/11/09 10:43 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

we're all fucked and might as well just 'assume the position'

 
At 23/11/09 1:50 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Where the hell are the anonymous right wing on line mafia SCREAMING about the attacks on property rights?"

Because the property rights of people you support i.e. of criminals, are of no concern to us bomber.

 
At 23/11/09 2:22 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Because the property rights of people you support i.e. of criminals, are of no concern to us bomber.

And that kinda explains it doesn't it? See I am concerned with rights for all NZers, where as you brave anonymous right wing poster, are only selfishly concerned for your rights, even when the law passed can include you as well you clown.

Thank you for clearing that up right wing anonymous poster, nice to see your principles extend to you and you alone.

 
At 23/11/09 2:51 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And that kinda explains it doesn't it? See I am concerned with rights for all NZers"

No, you're only concerned with the rights of those who believe in the same thing as you do. You care little for the rights of anyone except for a few worthy minorities. Everyone else you denigate as stupid, ignorant or extremist fools which is kinda what we the majoruty think of people with your beliefs bomber.

 
At 23/11/09 3:09 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Isn't that fascinating folks, brave anonymous poster here clearly states they don't care about the rights of others and then does a big diatribe putting words in my mouth to pretend I only care about minorities, when I care about everyone's rights, and have a blog full of examples to show how silly our brave anonymous poster is.

I denigrate stupid ignorant extremist fools, because they are stupid, ignorant and extremist brave anonymous poster, and if you are the 'majoruty' brave anonymous poster I don't think I have too much to worry about.

Rather than putting words in my mouth brave anonymous poster, perhaps you should spend a bit more time thinking about the words that just came out of your mouth?

Because the property rights of people you support i.e. of criminals, are of no concern to us bomber.

It's the property rights of everyone you fool, the definition of a gang is only 3 people, you've simply bought the spin by the Police that it's all aimed at gangs. Perhaps you need to be a bit more critical of what is feed you in future?

 
At 23/11/09 8:03 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"that the Drug Foundation rolled over for"

What are you on about now Martyn? Do you enjoy making s**t up?

Cheers
Ross, NZ Drug Foundation

 
At 23/11/09 9:26 pm, Anonymous Chris said...

What I find most disturbing is that there's no public discourse about the policies that were rushed through under "urgency" by the mainstream media. Mind you, when there is and sort of discourse, the debate always appears to be "National's new policy: great policy or GREATEST policy?"

 
At 23/11/09 11:08 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Hi there Ross, always good to hear from you. The Drug Foundation was running cover for this National Party drug testing regime weren't you? I'm sure I saw you pop up on screen saying that drug driving was a factor in crashes giving Police the moral cover they required? See I read the results simply as 'people who die in crashes showed that they had smoked marijuana in the last 3 months' rather than, "they tested for weed, that must be a factor in the crash".

 
At 24/11/09 7:34 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure I saw you pop up on screen saying that drug driving was a factor in crashes giving Police the moral cover they required?

So you don't care that people drive while on drugs?

I asked you this before, you denied it, but here you are again defending it.

Bomber, do you think driving whilst stoned is a good thing?
Do you think people can have accidents whilst driving stoned?

 
At 24/11/09 9:16 am, Anonymous Ross Bell said...

Hi Bomber - my pleasure - it seems that everytime there's a drug policy/law change you don't agree with you accuse the Drug Foundation of rolling over - but you do little to find out what our views are on those issues.

On drug driving, much of our media comment that you would have seen was in relation to a survey we conducted on NZ attitudes and behaviours on drug driving - the findings are here, so I won't go into detail:
http://drugfoundation.org.nz/report/drugs-and-driving

(You'll see from our report that people should rightly be concerned about drug impaired driving).

Coincidently, our research was released about the same time the government changed their mind on drug driving law, and brought it forward a month.

You will read from our report the international evidence about drug driving and testing (including our concerns about subjective impairment tests and saliva tests). We raised those concerns with govt agencies and Parliament; the Transport minister is on record saying he also has concerns about the subjectivity of the tests.

We also raised our concerns about the tests many years ago, and our media comment on them has been pretty consistent (a quick google search should find links to some of that coverage).

Happy to provide more detail on our views on this or other drug policy topics.

If you wish Bomber we can add you to our media mailing list, so you can receive our quarterly magazine:
http://drugfoundation.org.nz/media/info-for-journalists

Sincerely
Ross, NZ Drug Foundation

 
At 25/11/09 6:56 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Lord why must I deal with clowns so early in the morning?

So you don't care that people drive while on drugs?
Where did I say that clown? I care if they are imapired and are a threat to other drivers, the research used by the Drug Foundation that has been so happily picked up by National to justify this abortion of a law only shows that people smoked weed 3 months before their crash - you can not extrapolate the figures to suggest it had an impairment - you do understand that right Anon?

I asked you this before, you denied it, but here you are again defending it.
Why are you such an idiot? Why? Why? Why? What part of this don't you seem to understand?

Bomber, do you think driving whilst stoned is a good thing?
NO - NO I DON'T YOU MORON!

Do you think people can have accidents whilst driving stoned?
I'm sure they can, but we don't know what the impairment level is do we clown? Let me say it slowly for you.

Weed can stay in your system for 3 months.

You could have a joint 2 months ago.

You get pulled over, fail the bullshit subjective test the cop man uses to fail you get blood tested and the weed will turn up in the test, meaning you fail the test based on a joint you smoked 2 months ago, see how that doesn't work anon?

Ross, always so great to hear from you. You are right, I've amended my post to
(that the Drug Foundation were used as justification), because that's what National did and I suppose in these budget cutting days under a socially conservative government you have to whistle the same tune eh? I acknowledge that you have brought up some of the same issues I have, but the incorrect reading of the number of people testing for weed in car accidents has been used to justify these drug driving powers. What do I mean by that? Rather than reading the figures as 'that weed was a direct influence in the car accident', all that you can suggest is 'that weed was smoked maybe 3 months before the car accident'. There is no level of impairment and weed stays in your system for up to 3 months, the Drug Foundation has been used to give National the smokescreen they needed from a semi-liberal body with some street cred to promote a gross expansion of police powers.

Sorry for suggesting you had rolled over rather than used.

 
At 7/7/10 10:12 am, Blogger minority report said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 7/7/10 10:51 am, Blogger minority report said...

Keep up the good work bomber. If some people are the majority that think it wo'nt happen to them, then I'll put my hand up for the minority!
It's happening all over the world, wish more people would wake up to the MATRIX.
I found your article informative.
Cheers

 
At 25/8/11 7:27 pm, Blogger Ezra said...

You peaple are bullshit

 
At 25/8/11 7:28 pm, Blogger Ezra said...

You peaple are bullshit

 

Post a Comment

<< Home