It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. - Ezra Taft Benson
So I read this legislation: The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill 2013. On the face of it, it looks like a hard line stance against people associating for the purposes of illegal activity. If you have been wondering what all the hoohah is about, here are a couple of salient problematic points.
1. Under the act: An 'association' can mean a group of 3 or more people gathered in association whether constituted ( as in a club or association ) or informal (as in a bunch of friends) whether legal or illegal. Bottom line this means a group of 3 or more people in any situation can be deemed to be in 'association'.
2. Police action is linked to 'proscribed offences' (from unlawful assembly, and riot to more serious crimes like drugs and murder) i.e. if you commit an a proscribed offence in association with 2 other people then this Act covers your actions.
If these fundamentals are fulfilled then you have committed an offence under the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill 2013. As such the courts are obligated to sentence you for the 'crime' and add an additional 15 years mandatory imprisonment above and beyond the initial sentence. If at the time your were an 'office holder' (this covers informal organisers, leaders as well as officials of a formal association) then you will also attract an additional 10 years mandatory sentencing (mandatory means the court has no discretion not to add this sentence).
So for example: If you committed armed robbery as the leader of a bikie gang, you might attract a sentence of 7 years for the armed robbery, 15 years manadatory sentencing as a member of the gang, and an additional 10 years as an official of the gang. A total of 32 years imprisonment with no parole considered on the 25 years extended sentence.
Any thinking, socially conscious person might be excused for thinking "Well if they were acting lawfully they wouldn't be in trouble... so throw away the key!"... To be honest, I am not far off that opinion either HOWEVER this is NOT the full story here.
If this armed robbery was committed with a bunch of mates you are acquainted with... you would also fall under the same rules of association.
You might still say "do the crime do the time". Fair enough.
3 teenagers who shoplift together... on my reading they would still fall under the rules of 'proscribed offence' and 'rules of association'....
Still you might say "throw away the key"... I might not disagree.
Now consider this article : Taking to the streets of Brisbane
Under the new act anyone participating in these protests, if they occured now, would attract mandatory sentencing of 10 years per person and 25 years for protest organisers. (keep in mind unlawful assembly is one of the proscribed offences in the act). Police and the courts do not have the discretion NOT to charge someone covered in this act. It is mandatory.
OK now I hear you say that's all history and we are smarter now? more enlightened?... hmm are we? ... Often it is actions like these that protest the status quo that has historically made the most drastic and positive changes in our society. As the saying goes...what we don't learn from we are doomed to repeat.
Most of the women's sufferage protests would have been illegal under this new Act. Women would never have got the vote, as the organisers would have been spending a life sentence in prison.
Women's Sufferage Chronology
There is a strong history of student activism in this country. Student protests are often ad hoc, emotional, responses to a diverse range of concerns. Often guilty of unlawful assembly, most of these protests would fall under the Act. If you do not obtain a permit (from the government) to hold a 'lawful' protest as a group then you will potentially be also covered by this Act. It would be a travesty to spend 15 years in jail for protesting a rise in student fees.
These out of control teen parties would also now be covered by this new act.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/technology/news/reforms-crack-down-on-parents-and-teens-to-control-facebook-parties/story-fniho3wq-1226675350420
http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/party-safe-helps-avoid-problems/1990625/
Time will tell how this legislation will impact the average person in our (yes ours not the government's!) society. Whether the latitude in the Act will be exploited to control the population. (Keep in mind the government is OUR servant not the other way around). Let's hope little Johnny isn't caught up in a drunken teen party that gets out of hand, or anyone wants to gather in the Queen Street Mall to protest this government's new range of behaviour modifying legislations. If you do want to protest, make sure you do it alone, do not discuss it with friends, and make sure you have a permit to do so.
It begs the question. "If it is determined that the state parliament have breached the constitution, and as an association of peers will they be held accountable under the Act?" .. Ok that's bit tongue in cheek... but keep in mind this legislation was passed with no research, and no public consultation in three days of closed parliament. You will hear the government consistently quote "It is only a minority who are against this legislation, most Queenslanders are behind us" ... Again there is no research and no evidence of this. It is all just spin and hype. If you are one of those who accept that "if I think that everyone else thinks something then I might as well agree" then read no further. Turn off your brains you don't need them anymore.
On last comment: Politics has NO BUSINESS directing the judicial system. They are separated for VERY good reasons. This should worry us all.
If you would like to read this legislation in full click on the link below. This Act will be reviewed in 3 years lets hope some sanity is regained. I have my doubts. When has any government relinquished control once granted.
Link to the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill 2013
Caveat to the above: I am not a lawyer. I have no legal qualifications. I am just an interested observer as you should be.
