Well, finally, two complaints about my editorials, and I was prepared for both of them. One on the GST intro I did, and the other on the one about how crime is blown up. The point of the article was to show that even in 18th century London there were crime waves, and irrespective of policing policies, there will always be crime in society. Now, I will deal with the criticisms I got in my mail box one by one (criticisms are in bold, and my responses are in this type font. Legislation is also in bold form). Unfortunately, I can't do this for all editorials, as I haven't got time, and most of you won't read this word for word. However, there is fact behind my editorials, I just don't think I should spell it out, or phrase it diplomatically.

"Putting discretionary powers into the hands of uneducated bigots has resulted in unexplainable biases in crime statistics. Why are Aborigines up to 5 times over represented in custody figures? Police claim not to be racist, but as in the legendary documentary "cop it sweet", those very cops had racist sentiments. If police officers had more training in understanding Aboriginal issues, they may perhaps react differently."

This gross simplification of the issue ignores all other factors at play in why aboriginals have higher arrest rates than other "ethnicities". Your implication is quite clear: there's more aboriginals in gaol because police are racist. And what's your backing? An aged documentary. You need more corroborative evidence than that to build a case! The Tele might go to extremes and at times blame minorities of all sorts of social woes. Don't you go to far in the other extreme! (If you do, then you've become simply another sort of sensationalist).

The intentions of some of my rants are to be opposite sensationalist anyway. My GST rant studied as an intellectual arguments would be like studying a form of reverse Akermanism (though there is a strong factual and common sense argument supporting my point of view). However, the basis of this article was certainly more educational than any editorial that I have ever read in any newspaper in Australia, or column. I quoted from two major publications on the history of policing both in Australia and Britain, and this was the basis of my discussion. As to the application of the Aboriginal issues; it is obvious that the racist attitudes of the police alone cannot account for such a high rate... but it goes a very long way (though of import is to note that some ethnic groups also have unusually high rates). The intellectual thinking behind this is that the police (and if you recall the earlier parts of the essay, where I noted the police in early colonial NSW were not accountable to the Government because there was no such thing as the NSW police force) were central in the dispossession of Aboriginal peoples from their lands. Along with pastoralists, and the adequate mechanisms of the state (magistrates no doubt turning a blind eye to massacres), the Aborigines had their land stolen away from them. Now, barely a hundred and fifty years has passed (and mind you, the role of law enforcement officials in this century has not been any better - see "stolen generations report"), and somehow the dispossessed are supposed to trust and obey the mechanism that kicked them out of their own society. Hence, it IS NOT THE ROLE OF ABORIGINES to accommodate the Police Force... IT IS THE ROLE OF THE POLICE FORCE to bend over backwards to support, encourage, be kind to the Aboriginal people to engender some sort of respect. One thinks it is a fair trade off. Police help steal land, Police help steal kids from families, Police now try to understand the anger of Aborigines and not arrest them for being drunk or swearing. Secondly, if anyone understands aboriginal culture, they do not behave like many of us, (ie. essentially private beings). They congregate in public and have their arguments in public and get drunk in public and show their emotions in public. Why should so many of them die in custody for such trivial crimes as swearing at a police officer, or being drunk (mind you, Aborigines were always alcoholics right?... who introduced them to it... btw. a similar pattern emerges with the US Govt feeding Cocaine to segments of the African American population). As the documentary COP IT SWEET, and Commissioner Ryan's storming of Eveleigh Street last year prove, the harrassment of these people (would you like it if every night, police patrols with spotlights shone over your house, disturbed your sleep, questioned you because you looked 'suspicious'?) continues even today. No wonder there is distrust. What is to note is that I did not impute all police officers. As I say in one of my essays, it is not enough that the cadets coming out of the police force are educated on such matters. And most certainly, not all police officers are racist, even indirectly. Though, the highness of such arrest figures suggest something wrong with the policing environment. To deny this would be to say that it is solely the fault of the indigenous population. Of course, I couldn't put all this in an editorial. For even more information on the causes of Aboriginal crime (with many more explanations than the singular policing example I gave), and their solutions, check out an essay I did for criminology.

"If police officers had more training in understanding Aboriginal issues, they may perhaps react differently."

If you did more research you'd know that there are a number of entire subjects devoted entirely to Aboriginal Issues - compulsory for ALL police officers now. (Not just cadets).

Unfortunately, the facts that I have indicate to me that not ALL police officers HAVE TO do subjects entirely devoted to Aboriginal Issues. According to my research, the Goulburn academy has a partnership with Sturt University. In that period, topics covered include criminal justice, communication, management, customer relations, etc. The friendly people at the help desk advised me during my hours of research for my essay, that Aboriginal issues would be covered in the course of their gaining their diploma (ie while doing procedure, or customer relations)... but, it would not necessarily be focussed on one paticular ethnic group. For further information on this matter, ring the Goulburn Police Academy on 48232525. As for ALL police officers having to do entire subject DEVOTED to Aboriginal Issues, that is a tentatively dubious claim at the very least. Needless to say, my problems are with the existing structure, the lack of education (until recently), and certainly the State Government's actions in bringing in a University diploma as compulsary in encouraging, though a little disappointing on the Aboriginal Issues front. I stand to be corrected on these matters, with the relevant authority and contact numbers.

"Police enforcement can be carried out successfully without a PRA, without the strict knife search laws, and without the power to arrest for indecent language."

I know it's an editorial, but once again I must emphasize it passes the line into sensationalist nonsense. Like the Tele, you make sweeping accusations - but no practical alternatives. In your quote above you haven't informed us what you mean by "successfully" nor what alternatives you suggest. In removing the PRA and Knife-laws (you don't seem to even know what the actual and relevant act is - let alone what powers it actually gives the police) how do you suggest police deal with what are quite real crime-problems in certain areas?

Well, talk about assumption making on a grand scale. I prefer not to call the knife laws the Crimes Legislation Ammendment (police and public safety) Act. I also thought that someone would already know the provisions contained therein. I am doing criminal law and procedure, and we just spent two weeks on discretionary powers. The powers of police regarding knives were already extensive. The powers of search were already extensicve.

The mere fact that crime has not increased over the past few centuries since Defoe was around does not mean we do nothing about it. As a progressive society, even the legal system must mature and not stagnate. In the 1920s there were many knife-attacks by so-called "Razor Gangs". It was probably worse then than now and police then had less power then than they do now. However as time has moved on, so too has the law and new laws are introduced so that police can MORE EFFECTIVELY deal with what is not necessarily a new problem - just an age old problem - crime. At what cost? If some small democratic-freedoms are curtailed for us all (I for one disagree with certain laws applying only to the under 16 or 18s) then I think that is a small price to pay. What is often ignored is the fact that not only our "democratic freedoms" are infringed upon by criminals - but our simple right to be happy. I can be happy in a society where I'm not allowed to do certain things (like murder or carry a knife or swear in public) - I find it difficult to be happy in a society where there are certain places I cannot go at night for fear of death or injury by criminals. I would prefer to have my freedom impinged upon by the government (or police) who by-and-large are responsible (not always but more so than - ) - rather than by the criminals who are not responsible.

That of course, is your preference. I am simply saying, take a hold of those innocent people who are constantly harrassed by police (unintentionally of course) because they fit the stereotype of the criminal. ie. The bearded Lebanese Muslim, the Aborigine on Eveleigh street. Of course a white anglo saxan would not feel too much hostility towards law enforcement officers (though that is even changing in the outskirts of some towns). If pensioners feel uncomfortable with loud youths congregating in public, then that is not a signal to give police broad and sweeping powers that would be combatted effecitvely in ways I clearly outlined:

1. EMPLOY MORE POLICE - The mere presence of police officers stops crimes, not some dubious piece of legislation that gives what few there are more powers.

2. PAY THEM MORE MONEY - SO that an educated elite (that's what we should hope for in a police force) can more effectively and undiscriminatingly exercise their discretionary powers (however, one thinks these discretionary powers are discriminatory - ie. to focus on particular age groups, ethnic groups, etc.).

The question therefore is, is it worth it being searched for a knife for no possible reason (If you looked at the SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1988 {mind you, the Summary Offences Act is a sufficiently terrible piece of legislation as far as far reaching police powers go} prior to its being ammended by the new knife laws at section 28A, you'd know what I mean when I argued that this current knife law was an even more ridiculous intrusion into daily lives). Haven't we learnt why the US has a strict constitutional ammendment protecting the liberties of its people. The whole police force is there so that it doesn't plant evidence, and doesn't carry out undue searches. Legislating to increase police powers will not make one bit of difference. We need more police to patrol the streets, not more of the same "I'm going to cut freedom laws". If some of you have read the insightful book by Paul Wilson called "Black Death White Hands", you will know what I mean when I exercise a legitimate and sensationalist concern over discretionary powers. One must be equally as sensational and as loud mouthed as Alan Jones or the Tele Mirror to get their point of view across. Reasoned and educational conversation has given this "vibrant" democracy these horrendous pieces of legislation. A further look at the knife laws are worth considering. For example, schedule 2:

knife includes:

(a) a knife blade, or

(b) a razor blade, or

(c) any other blade,

but does not include anything that is of a class or description declared by the regulations to be excluded from this definition.

Of course, it is again, up to regulation to describe what sort of blade constitutes a knife (the legislation does however provide examples of exemtpions). But further and more distressing intrusions into the lives of citizens can be read following closer examination of the ammendments to s28A of the Summary Offences Act (click here to read the full ammending sections of the Summary) contained in the knive laws:

In conducting a search of a person under subsection (1), a police officer:

2(c) if reasonably possible to do so, should carry out any examination of a bag that the person has with him or her by allowing the person to hold the bag open and move the contents so that they can be more easily viewed by the police officer, and

(d) must, in the case of a search of a student in a school and if reasonably possible to do so, allow the student to nominate an adult who is on the school premises to be present during the search.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the fact that a person is present in a location with a high incidence of violent crime may be taken into account in determining whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has a dangerous implement in his or her custody.

Note the "if reasonably possible" clauses. Do I have to spell out certain situations where evidence can be planted under such situations. In both 2c and 2d, a police officer might be able to take hold of the bag of a person or search the locker of a child without adult supervision. The more distressing provision lies in the highly formalistic words of number 3. "REASONABLE GROUNDS" in this very sentence has been exposed as a fraud, A con-job, an oxymoron, a ridiculously lovely "I can fool people into believing police have to think you're going to do something" notion. Here we see that the notion has been watered down to such an extent that Bankstown, Auburn, Cabramatta, Chatswood, the City, can all be defined as plaves with a "high incidence of violent crime". I suggest to any adult being searched by police to ask:

"under what grounds am I being searched?"

"how is this reasonable?"

and if they answer that it is a violent crime area, ask them:

"on whose evidence do you wish to say this is a violent crimes area?"

(please note, do not resist the search if they use the 'violent' area thing, unless you are willing to take the legislation to the High Court - resisting a search can incur some peenalty points - and as the author of the criticisms will later point out, a criminal is always a criminal irrespective of the penalty he or she has paid)

Of course, the indiscriminate (though targetted) nature of police searches across "crime hot spots" exposes the "reasonable suspicion" protections as a joke.

Thus, one must be weary and wary about the typical arguments "if safety means these tough new laws and an incursion on our civil liberties, then so be it." (even Bob Carr said it). Safety from burglary will come when Heroin is legalised (or all heroin drug addicts are imprisoned if the better option is refused). Safety from the perception of crime must be fought off with the perception of security that a stronger and more effective (less intrusive - ie. minus the summary offences act, or the knife laws) police presence would bring in our public places (see psychology that private security guards bring - visual construction of banks and bank ads to engage a perception of safety - especially employment of security guards outside banks, inspite of security screens and the fact that most wouldn't even retaliate in an armed situation). Of course, safety can always be achieved too with the enforcement of a "police state" (in its popular usage), which in effect, is what many teenagers are pragmatically living under.

"If I am 16, am doing nothing wrong, walking with a group of my friends, or hanging around on the street, I should not be stopped by police."

On the face of it, that seems reasonable. However the situation arises when plice encounter a group of mostly male youths who are loud and intimidating (intimidating in their manner, their language and their actions). These youths may be doing absolutely NOTHING WRONG - but they might be all known to policce. Known because each of them - at some time or another has broken a law. They've committed crimes such as theft, violent assualt, wilful damage or any number of other crimes.

Firstly, the whole concept of penalty is that if you are doing the crime, you do the time, and you are rehabilitated. Now, this notion of 'suspicion due to prior criminal record' is just as ridiculous as the "consorting" measures that used to take place (ironic given that most people would've come under it in colonial Australia). ie. whenever an ex criminal (or a person with a criminal record) hung around with a bunch of mates, his mates could be arrested for consorting with that person. Obviously, this is a tool for creating SOCIAL ORDER as the elites see it, not of democracy. It was sparked by a paranoia, and not by reasonable police practice. A prior criminal record does not say that the person is guilty of a crime he, as you acknowledge, is not even guilty or close to being guilty of.

The police can walk on by and treat the youths just like any other law abiding citizens - they can stand, wait and watch for these youths to actually do something wrong before pouncing (impractical of course when there's a call about a domestic dispute, a robbery or a cat in a tree up the road) or they can do some preventative policing. Actually go up to the youths - move them on. Make sure they haven't got anything on them which might be a danger to themselves or the rest of society.

Moving people on is not constitutionally acceptable practice unless there is some sort of obstruction. I haven't read the PRA in a long time, but this could be one mode of challenge to the High Court if a provision such as this exists. Now, why do you assume that these youths will do something wrong? Where is the reasoning in that? Sure, they are loud, sure they are in public doing public things, but where is the intellectual basis for searching someone, asking for their names, driving them home if it's too late, FOR NO REASON? I repeat. NO REASON!

Rather than waiting for more victims to be created before police can act, they can use these discretionary powers to curtail crime in KNOWN criminals. For all that you've said about what is bad about dicretionary powers, there is much that is good that has come out of them. When all is said and done - if you are arrested for something you did not do - or the police treat you poorly - the thing to do nowdays in NSW (like California) is to sue-sue-sue. This avenue is always open to the mistreated if they want to use it.

I haven't talked about arrest. I'm talking about the reasoning behind searching targetted groups of people indiscriminately. I'm talking about certain classes of people feeling under the pall of suspicion wherever they go and being harrassed by police because they are naturally "loud, raucus, and like to congregate in groups." Remember one of the most important bases of a democracy is the ability to congregate in groups. And as for "known" criminals, why not just throw them in jail irrespective. 'They're going to do it again anyway'. Your "preventative model" sounds a lot like the special law passed in NSW to detain Gregory Wayne Kable (thankfully, that law was ruled unconstitutional).

The police are well aware of the risks of abusing their power and are more cautious than one may realise. Police in my experience - even in a place like Bankstown - aree always amazingly polite, intelligent and helpful. Even to the scumbag they may have just arrested. The scum are politely told why they're being arrested, what they can do about it - who they can contact, where they aree being taken, do they want a drink? etc, etc. It's not that drachonian. Alan Jones may love the police having all this new power - and so may the Tele - but if they were to see how well a person who has just sexually assualted some 15 year old girl is treated by police, I think there'd be uproar.

Of course, such an emotive use of example, does not answer the question fully, but rather avoids the crux of my argument. If Australia is a true democracy why must there be laws:

- Prohibiting youths from congregating in groups of three or more (will this cause a sexual assault?)

- Escorting Children to their homes on a police's perceived assessment of that child being likely to cause risk to others, or is in danger him/herself (will the abolition of this provision cause rape?)

- Allowing ordinary people to be searched in public with an extremely low standard of "reasonable suspicion"

If a person is going to rape a girl, this will happen irrespective of any law you have. He will do it either on a date (more common by far than "stranger rape"), or more worryingly, in already existing domestic relationships. To bring in a 15 year old girl to support an argument about the overly excessive PRA and knife laws provisions is also being slightly sensationalist - though there are enough of these types of sensationalists to go around in NSW. They are the ones that were crucial in getting these laws in. Police anyway, should not stoop to the level of the criminal in their dealings with them, no matter how disgusting or putrid their crime is. But then again, I seem to have lost my common sense.