[Edit: link to Meurant piece reinstated. Thanks for the headsup Scott.]
Stephen pointed at this piece by Ross Meurant, describing his journey through police culture (“the forest”) as a true believer, and eventually out of it to the point where he can look back with perspective. Some of it is extraordinary:
Your mission is to protect society from this evil. Very soon you learn to decide what is evil and what is not. You are no longer just a collector of human rubbish at the base of the cliff but you have an obligation; yes, even a duty to guide the country to a decent society. That direction is best decided by you and others in your sub culture of police, for what better epitomises the values of a decent society than those cherished by the men and women in blue?
He urges action in response to the ‘terror raids’:
I urge every New Zealander not to allow the state apparatus to take from you by default, legal rights people long before us fought for, died for. I urge every New Zealand to contact their Member of Parliament and express concern that the anti-terror legislation currently before parliament, be placed on “hold” until the true nature of the present police raids under the auspicious of terror legislation, is tested before the courts.
This is a timely call, from an unexpected quarter. NZ’s politicians are, by and large, reluctant to throw their weight behind the raids in case they turn out to be shonky; they are likewise reluctant to speak out against them in case they turn out to be sound. Exceptions are the Maori party, who have been outspoken in framing this as a racist action, and the NZ First comedy bandwagon, who have been outspoken in framing the Maori party’s criticism as a racist action.
As the days have turned into weeks and the cloak of secrecy over the whole affair remains in place, my expectation that this is a legitimate action has dwindled to virtually nothing. New Zealand is a small society, and the informal networks are hard at work. People I trust in turn know and trust many of the arrestees, or those who have been harassed by the police in this operation. My faith in the strength of these networks is much greater than my faith in the official line of the police operation.
The public interest in this case is significant. While I don’t think the operation was intended to suppress protest as an end in itself, that is its effect, and that obligates a democratic state to act with care and transparency. The claims behind the raids are wide-ranging and unprecedented. The suggestion is that New Zealand is not the nation we think it is; that its heart is not what we understand it to be. This is enormously powerful stuff that has the potential to shift our national identity. Determining the worth of the raids is vital for us if we are to know the society of which we are part.
The public have not been entrusted with any real evidence. A few incendiary text messages, and claims of gun-running and illegal gun ownership, do not amount to much of anything. Given what is here at stake, the public has a right to know as soon as possible what basis exists for the operation. Continued secrecy will weaken our society. The public need for some hard facts is pressing, and keeping the specific accusations against the accused a secret – let alone the evidence – is rapidly becoming indefensible.
And, of course, there are many good reasons to doubt the worth of the raids – the Louise Nicholas affair has generally undermined our faith in the police, and the Ahmed Zaoui debacle demonstrated that secrecy can be used to keep the many weaknesses of a case out of the public eye.
It seems increasingly impossible that this is anything more than an elaborate fantasy, where the police (and SIS?) sought out only confirmatory evidence for their hypothesis that there was a threat. Of course, they found it.
Meurant urges that we demand to place the anti-terror legislation on hold until the truth about these raids comes out; I think we have every right to demand that the truth be revealed sooner rather than later. The state apparatus has not earned our good faith, and it is now time they fronted up.
There was a good turn out at the protest.
I actually think you’re being a bit unreasonable in regards to the police action. For a start, the police do not have a political agenda – the actual structure of their relationship to parliament simply does not allow or support it.
I have it from trustworthy sources that the police simply don’t have the structure to allow such things to be feasible.
Regardless of the size of New Zealand, many of these people were involved in legally questionable activities. I doubt they are terrorists, but I also doubt that they are innocent of any crime either. I prefer to wait and see what evidence is brought to light.
Having a bit of an understanding of how justice and people work, I can understand the reasoning behind keeping evidence secret until trial. I don’t necessarily think it is fully wise – but I can understand why it can be seen as detrimental to the accused to have that evidence public knowledge. Because it can effect the way the public judge the course of events and could lead to a miscarriage of justice – and potentially against those accused.
What sickens me is the amount of politicking going on from all quarters through lack of any evidence.
People can often seem one thing and hide another – relying on friend of a friend speculation proves nothing, and I find you saying that your confidence in police has waned to nil because of rumours by people you trust is worrying.
This is bigger than the Louise Nicholas affair, and also unrelated. The Police Force has many aspects to it, and the raids were related to a much larger number of agencies and individuals – which lowers the chances of deliberate corruption.
I respect what my brother has said, which is to point out that it probably was an over-reaction to the reality. But Iti, Lockett and others were behaving like immature idiots and are highly naive if they think the Police and security agencies wouldn’t take them seriously in the event of threats being made – even in jest.
The unfortunate truth is that especially with the flak the police have been taking recently, nobody could afford to take such a dangerous suspicion lightly. If it had ended up being a real terrorist threat, things would have been a lot worse.
To me, until it goes to trial and the evidence is made public it is best to just avoid too much speculation. I would point out that judges are not prone to denying bail just because of circumstantial evidence such as text messages. There is likely more evidence that they have seen – and until trials begin, the public has no true need to know.
That is the blunt reality. I agree that the anti-terrorism laws are dangerous, but it is also dangerous to make the mistake of confusing them with the raids. They are two issues that are happening at the same time, but are not really linked at all. Parliamentary procedure and police procedure occur quite divorced from each other. The same goes for the racism argument – that is a third issue that interested parties have trotted out to try and gain some political ground on. It is not really related to the raids at all.
Conan
So, Billy, what explains the recent arrest and charging of a violent criminal in Christchurch with receiving and possession of firearms and ammunition? I haven’t seen any song and dance in the p*lice PR department about it, and somehow they managed to get him behind bars without noticeably disrupting Christchurch, and then made their evidence public. Again without fanfare.
If they can do that with one armed nutbar, why can’t they do it with a bunch of hippies and peaceniks?
I mean, do they really think Tame Iti is going to shoot one of them? He has actually been in court for firearms offences which is more than the any of the other named accused have been, and he seems to me to be quite unlikely to shoot anyone. if not him, then who?
Whoa, Moz,
Firstly, the criminal in Christchurch was receiving stolen goods – they were collector guns and stolen from collectors. No threat to national security.
The issue with these guys caught in the raids (not all of them are hippies and peaceniks) is that they have been part of a year long operation that recently observed actions or heard information that gave them a scare.
The information that might be revealed by the evidence could be sensitive to deciding whether a jury would move for or against the accused.
If the information is released before a jury is selected, those sitting on the jury may not view the evidence in such an unbiased manner. This could mean that the evidence is not strong enough to convict without a doubt, but could be compelling.
The fact of the matter is that the public have no right to know what the evidence is prior to going to trial. Once the trials begin, then evidence will come out – but to ensure a fair trial for such a highly charged and public case, then the evidence cannot be presented too early. Otherwise it will predispose the jury.
It’s not as uncommon as you may think.
They are two very different cases. The guy in Christchurch most likely was not threatening to start an army against the nation in a manner that could be taken seriously. Now Jamie Lockett was probably shooting his mouth off – I get the impression he’s a showboat who shoots off his mouth a lot – but how can you be sure if you don’t know the guy personally? Would you want to take the chance that he wasn’t going to actually go out and get together a group of people with plans of violence.
I think there is a might too much over-reacting from people all over the show. To the point of drawing connections where there are none.
Hey Conan,
I’ve been reading your posts on the subject with interest, and I do respect where you’re coming from and think we agree on some important stuff – but there is plenty of different ground here.
I agree about the need to sit on evidence so as not to bias the trials. What bothers me, and what I think is both unnecessary and actively damaging to the public good, is the complete information blackout currently in place.
A complete information blackout is not necessary in order to preserve the integrity of the trial.
There is *plenty* of space in which to move. It isn’t even clear exactly what the accusations are, and that’s what sets off plenty of alarm bells for me.
I am deeply unconvinced by any argument that the public must know nothing at all until the trial, and think it is of the greatest importance that we are allowed to move beyond speculation in short order.
For the record, I don’t think the police action is politically motivated, and never indicated anything of the sort. I think the police has a distinct and independent culture and is not politically driven (although the politics of police officers tend to fall on the socially conservative side, which is a different sort of thing entirely). My best explanation for the raids is pretty much the same as yours – an over-reaction, brought about through filtering all information through a confirmation bias.
Hey there Morgue,
I do think that on the fundamentals we agree. 🙂 I just feel that there is more going on here, not less.
It is interesting to note that they have gone ahead with applying for permission to make terrorism charges. It will be interesting to see what the Solicitor-General says after reviewing the evidence.
A friend said to me yesterday that everyone is offering to show their support for the arrestees by signing a petition, or joining a protest. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that these are real people who are involved, and it isn’t just a political hot potato.
My oldest friend has been arrested, along with her 2 brothers. Their family has been ripped apart, regardless of whether or not these accusations turn out to have been well-founded. I cannot fathom my friend being involved with organised terrorism or firearms, although I know she is a veteran protester. I also know that history is full of people who have been adamant that their friend/loved one was not capable of crime, and who have turned out to be wrong.
Truth will out, in the end. Hopefully sooner rather than later. In the meantime, I can only love support my friend, and hope for the best outcome. Whatever that is.
“I agree that the anti-terrorism laws are dangerous, but it is also dangerous to make the mistake of confusing them with the raids. They are two issues that are happening at the same time, but are not really linked at all.”
What, you mean apart from the fact that the police used the anti-terrorism laws already in place in their investigations, and have asked for permission to prosecute under them?
My understanding of the Suppression of Terrorism Act is that any evidence that would be considered to jeopardize national security will remain secret. Obviously we cannot be told WHY it would jeopardize national security because that would also jeopardize national security.
Which is precisely why I am dubious of assertions like “until it goes to trial and the evidence is made public it is best to just avoid too much speculation”. It may never be made public, we may never know, and quite frankly the media in this country is in such a disgraceful state that they’re unlikely to ask the hard questions. And then people will forget all about it.
As for the “no connection between parliament and police” thing… The relevant people on all sides of the House were, quite naturally, briefed about the police action a long time before it happened. And they did not decide to move the discussions of thw Act to a less, shall we say, volatile time. Which seems opportunistic to me. At the very least.
The Police did not act under the new laws, nor out of any motivation to effect them. Under the current law, they must apply them in the event of such a case as this.
Parliament has made the decision to continue looking at the law as a seperate decision. While it can look like they are connected – the way the police operate means that it is highly unlikely.
The police, as a force, are not political. The Police Association is – but that is a different entity.
In regards to the leaders being told by police, that is because whenever the police act on a serious operation like this one, they inform the police minister as a courtesy – who then can see to it that the information is spread around parliament if they feel that it should be done so.
Don’t mistake that for parliament and police acting in cahoots – it is simply standard etiquette. AND it is a wise action when about to undertake a potentially volatile action.
I suspect you will find much more of the evidence will come to light due to the nature of this crime. Many of the papers know more about what is going on than is being reported – but the information is legally supressed.
As I said – it is better to wait for the outcome of the trials rather than getting all worked up over speculation, and making rather weak links.
Especially when they don’t fit with how the various agencies communicate and operate.
I doubt there is a conspiracy against activists, and I doubt that Tame Iti is a terrorist. But I do think that these guys have been idiots who pushed their luck and didn’t realise the consequences of their actions.
Conan – Reading through all these responses, and your repeated statements of the non-political nature of the New Zealand police makes me wonder if you’ve actually read the article morgue linked to at the start of then post. The link up there seems to be broken, so I’ll post it here:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4251564a6442.html
This article, written by a man who with undeniable experience at being at the very front line of the police, the very front line of police action against political disenters, tells a different story.
While the police may be ‘apolitical’ they instead have a dangerously insular culture that puts the police squarely on the right side of each and every thing the force does, by mere nature that they, the police, are doing it. To take some quotes from the article:
“Your mission is to protect society from this evil. Very soon you learn to decide what is evil and what is not. […]That direction is best decided by you and others in your sub culture of police, for what better epitomises the values of a decent society than those cherished by the men and women in blue? ”
“When I speak about a police culture, I speak about the environment I have described. It is introverted, self protecting and lacking objectivity.”
“The “them and us” ethos becomes tangible. What is more, the culture is working class conservative in its origins. Bigoted and intolerant. Few of its officer corps are university graduates and even fewer hail from private schools. There is no network which pervades the upper echelons of society. The police are insular.”
Meurant concludes with an important message – that the police seriously lack oversight and independant / outside scrutiny. He concludes that we should trust their pronouncements on ‘terrorism’ as much as we trust those of the Bush administration in Washington.
This man is not a dangerous loony lefty. He knows how the police work. And he’s concerned. He’s calling for New Zealander’s to stand up and question what the police are doing “Trust us”, he says, shouldn’t be a police response to questions directed at them.
So, please, Conan – read that article and, hopefully, you’ll appreciate a bit more why many New Zealanders do not and cannot trust the police decisions to raid maori activists, anarachists, dissidents and greenies in October 2007.
Scott,
I did read the article, and I’m not saying that the police are blameless – what I am saying is that the justice system will out the evidence. It will come out whether this is just targeting activists and dissidents, or if there really is more going on here than meets the eye.
From analysis of the various news articles, and what has been mentioned by various people connected with the media, there is information that has been revealed during the current dealings with the courts and who has been arrested that the media have been privy to but can’t reveal yet. They are currently in court proceedings to have that suppression lifted.
What has been let slipped, deliberately, is that once all 17 people are revealed it may become apparent that this is neither about race or activists and greenies. That the people arrested are of a broader scope. Which will be interesting information in and of itself.
Again, I think that some people are over-reacting and speculating with a serious lack of supportive evidence. I am confident that it will eventually become apparent if the Police are doing a white-wash job or if this is a genuine case. Patience is the key – not wild speculation.
Of course it’s lovely for people who are locked up to have patience that evidence will come out – Morgue has already mentioned Ahmed Zaoui; I think saying that the SIS and the police should just be trusted after that trust has been blatantly abused without remorse is a real leap of faith. If people don’t see justice being done, and have seen justice not being done in the recent past, it’s not an over-reaction to doubt that justice is being done.
As for saying that people are speculating with a serious lack of evidence, isn’t that rather the point? National security be damned (what exactly is that, anyway?), secrecy and what looks to many as something extremely dodgy trumps such concerns. Clearly there has been a trend in recent years for the threat of terrorism to be used as an excuse for unacceptable behaviour on the part of authorities in numerous countries. Equally clearly this is something that must be taken into account when we have the police breaking into places around the country, half the time without search warrants.
Yet politically, socially and culturally we have set ourselves up as a country that took a strong stand against such tactics of intimidation. So the police would need to be remarkably stupid if they were to think that these actions wouldn’t stir up trouble.
I’m interested to know how often that trust has been so abused. Because I have been involved with the police on both sides of the law and still find reason to put trust in the justice system – which is a different system to the police force.
Again, Ahmed Zaoui was another situation that differs again from this one. Yes, that was an appallingly handled situation. But it is not the same set of circumstances.
I’m not talking to those who are imprisoned, I am talking to those who are making wild speculation and getting all worked up into a lather over a series of perceived abuses. And yet much of the evidence put forward is not really related to the situation – which I find concerning.
A lot of what you are saying is pure rumour. Now I’m no conservative, and I believe in a free but socially responsible nation. But I also believe in rational reasoning when in the face of situations like this.
All the anti-police rhetoric I have seen shows a serious lack of understanding about how our justice system, political system and legal system operate. Relying heavily on activist arguments that are used in overseas nations that are not set up like our at all.
Sorry for saying it, but I am failing to see evidence to support any of this over-reactive argument.
Conan writes: “Again, Ahmed Zaoui was another situation that differs again from this one. Yes, that was an appallingly handled situation. But it is not the same set of circumstances.”
Wendell Johnson writes: “A similarity is a difference that makes no difference.”
No two events are the same, with the same circumstances.
Frankly, I don’t see anyone running around in a lather. I see you saying that secrecy is not a problem because eventually we’ll know everything and at that point we can judge whether things are okay; and I see others saying that events are related, that there is a lack of trust, and that given this there is cause for concern. Waiting is not always a profitable strategy – what if all the facts never come out? What if further events overtake matters? Why must I, in supposed rationality, accept a pat on the head and a “there, there, trust us, it’ll all come right” from the same institutions which gave us the dawn raids on Pacific Islanders, Ahmed Zaoui (you may say that’s different, but it seems to me that the SIS being secretive and concerned with national security is a significant connection), the continuing saga of Clint Rickards, etc.?
You seem to be entirely ignoring the social element to this issue. It’s as if, hearing that a husband suspects (from a hunch, say) his wife of adultery, you see the problem as being one of whether the wife has actually committed adultery, whereas I think that the suspicion itself is a sign that there’s a problem in the relationship regardless of whether adultery occured.
The point I’m making is that MOST New Zealanders are in agreement with what I’m proposing. Most NZers are choosing to wait and see – following the news, having a few opinions and leaving it at that.
It is mostly the usual suspects getting up and decrying a lack of trust.
What should be getting asked is why do some people feel the need to look for reasons to not trust the police? Or, more accurately, supposition a variety of theories that run from the uninformed to purely absurd. Why?
The way I see it, in the case of a husband suspecting adultery – the reasonable response is for him to ask why he chooses to jump to conclusions about his wife’s actions.
It’s much the same here. Why is there the need for some people to HAVE to jump to conclusions? What is it that they really want? Why do they automatically make those accusations?
It isn’t reasonable, it isn’t thought out – what is it about themselves that might be related to this?
Reading Blogs and Opinion columns isn’t going to provide any facts. It will only tell you what certain aspects of our society feel about it.
But pay attention to polls and see what the nation as a whole feels. Polls suggest that many feel the police may have over-reacted, but that there is possibly good reason for the action. They feel that they need more information before passing judgement, that it isn’t a racist issue and that it isn’t deliberate targeting of activists and greenies.
That’s the majority.
In regards to dawn raids, Ahmed Zaoui and Clint Rickards – those are not handled by the same people at all. The Dawn Raids are an artifact of older laws, a different time and different people. Ahmed Zaoui was a unique case related to his suspicious actions connected with questionable security information. Clint Rickards? That is a case that has a lot of dodgey evidence from all quarters and is not connected to the police or security forces as a whole – and cannot *reasonably* be attributed to an entire nation’s legal and justice system.
The fact that Clint Rickard’s case is so public and topical is because it is so rare.
You’re drawing connections where there are none. Simply stop to consider the number of people involved in those services – it is not the same people working on each case. Furthermore, you are not being told “there, there…” – the justice system handles the cases and passes judgement – these are people with no affiliations to the police or government and our laws exist to ensure that.
The problem is that our laws are atrociously written in places, and that can hinder the course of justice. That is something that needs looking at – but that is not the same thing.
However – there is no conspiracy, and you really need to ask yourself why you feel the need to draw lines between such separate cases.
Better yet, research outside of fringe blogs and the newspaper. Study NZ Politics from a less bias source and learn to look at it critically. NZ is not a police state, nor is it an over-corrupt system. What we have is a clumsy system that is constantly being altered. Our law structure makes it very very hard for any law to be made eternally binding. This is so that laws can be altered in the event of society changing. We have certain aspects entrenched that are inalienable, but the option is there to alter things when necessary.
This is the sign of a free nation. We are not bound to archaic law. But we do suffer from some weak legal definitions. And that needs work on.
As an addendum –
“what if all the facts never come out? What if further events overtake matters?”
Then get angry when it happens. What if it does come out and it ends up that they were terrorists? What if it turns out Tame Iti has a mass murder grave site?
You can’t justify getting angry because of a whole bunch of what ifs that may never come to light. You can’t say that the police cannot be trusted when there is simply not enough evidence to support the claim. They have to actually do something wrong. The number of cases of Police error are actually considerably smaller than the cases of the police successfully protecting our rights and helping people out.
Consider the muggings in Wellington Central at the moment – where a guy was put into a coma from being beaten up. The Police have been getting a HUGE response, and I know for a fact that they have a very good idea who it is – and are getting a case together as fast as possible before another attack occurs.
If you are going to rely on what ifs, then be prepared to be angry and upset all the time. Life is full of them, and you can’t reasonably justify picking and choosing the times when you get worked up about them.
“The Police did not act under the new laws, nor out of any motivation to effect them.”
It was reported on National Radio Morning Report that powers granted under the Suppression of Terrorism Act 2002 were used to monitor cell phone text messages in order to gather evidence against the accused. Is this not true?
I don’t get my news from blogs. Hell, I only read half a dozen blogs and my main purpose is to see what people I know are up to.
“While it can look like they are connected – the way the police operate means that it is highly unlikely.”
I didn’t even suggest that they were connected in a conspiratorial sense. I said that it seems opportunistic of the Government to know that the Police were going to launch this action, and to then decide not to move back pushing the new amendments a bit.
Connection does not equal conspiracy.
“What should be getting asked is why do some people feel the need to look for reasons to not trust the police?”
I come from a largely non-white family. Maybe your run-ins with the Police ‘on both sides of the law’ have been lovely and sweet. That’s certainly not true of a lot of people.
Yes, ‘usual suspects’ like Maori and activists have been complaining. Well, it’s an activist’s job to agitate. That’s what they’re for.
As for Maori… do you have much experience with the difference between how many Police officers treat white people and how they treat Polynesian people? Isn’t it just barely possible that distrust of the Police can come from direct experience?
So to turn your question around: why should people who have had overwhelmingly negative trust the police?
For a start, it pays to know the circumstances in which those people have had negative encounters.
I’ve known a few maori activist types – very few of them have had bad things to say about how police have treated them, so don’t start playing the racial argument again. I have no doubt that some police do show prejudice, but I also know that *most* do not. I also know that in most cases the police do not show this prejudice.
Again, why have your encounters with police been negative? What were *you* doing to get the police involved?
This is the question that a number of activists seem to miss. If you challenge the law, be prepared to face the consequence. Maybe it is a good thing for the law to be challenged. But learn from such wisdom as those who promote peaceful protest. I know that most police respond in like force. If you come on aggressive, then it is likely they will respond aggressively.
If you’re approaching police with a negative attitude, don’t expect a positive response. I have found that many who decry lack of faith in police never trusted them in the first place, thus creating a bias.
In some occasions there are legitimate cases of bad cops – but they are not the norm. I have met a large number of police through work, family, friends and just walking on the street – including being stopped and questioned by police.
A majority of cops just do their job and they are good at it.
So again, I ask, how much of this is untrustworthy police and how much of it is related to your own actions? Don’t become an activist if you don’t want to have negative legal encounters. It is the nature of the activity that you will be arrested or detained – you are challenging the law, be prepared for the consequences. If you choose to be aggressive, be prepared to get aggression in return. If some green-behind the ears new recruit comes along you could be in for a conflict.
But that does not equate to all police are bad, or that the police force is untrustworthy.
“If you challenge the law, be prepared to face the consequence.”
Granted.
But, Conan, what you seem to be saying is, instead “If you challenge the police, be prepared to face the consequence.”
I’m sorry, that is not right. The police are not the law. I repeat – the police are not the law. The police force are there to police the laws, not to be the law.
In the last few days Greg O’Connor from the Police Association has been back in the media, being report as saying that “negative reporting of the nationwide police raids earlier this month and the debate over introducing tasers have exposed the police to excessive criticism, which could discourage officers from tackling difficult situations. ”
The same Radio NZ article, reports Counties-Manukau police officer Senior Sergeant Emiel Logan stating “the negative media attention disheartens officers who think they are doing a good job and is already forcing police in his area to approach situations differently.”
I read that, I heard those comments, and have to ask “what is wrong with the police having to listen to the community they police? What is wrong with the police having to approach situations with sensitivity, with understanding of context?
Greg O’Connor, however, thinks that this is wrong. This is bad. The police, he argues, cannot control society, cannot make it safe, if the media and the population are criticising them.
Greg O’Connor is, admittedly, an extreme voice. But there he is still is, making pronouncements that sound to my ears like a statement that the role of the New Zealand Police is to control the population of New Zealand.
That’s not their role. Their role is to police society in terms of the nations laws.
But what I hear from O’Connor, and what I’m hearing from you Conan, is that the police ARE the law, and to question the police is to question the law.
Is that really what you’re saying? If it is, fair enough. It just reinforces my very strong belief that we need IMMEDIATE and TANGIBLE action to create an office or agency that can independently oversee the police.
Conan, you don’t know me. You don’t know what I know, what I don’t know, and you don’t even know what I read. So please refrain from telling me to read more than “fringe blogs and the newspaper”, to aspire to be rational and unbiased (just like you, I’m going to guess you think), and to be in line with the majority of those polled somewhere.
Scott, I am not saying that the Police are the law. But if you challenge the law, then be prepared to face the consequences – which will involved dealing with the police.
By your own admission, the police uphold the law – thus they will react. Sometimes unfavourably.
Remember that they are people too, prone to reacting to the way they are treated. If you kick and scream at them – they will react to that.
Jamie, I am not claiming to be unbiased – but I am rational and reasonable. I am saying that you need solid evidence before decrying that you have lost faith in the police. I was referring to people in general and expressing concern that Morgue, a friend that I respect, is allowing himself to be influenced by speculation and hearsay instead of any solid evidence.
I agree that evidence is painfully slow in coming, but protest against that – not that the whole thing is a whitewash. Protest against the laws, not the police or the justice system. They are bound by the law – and saying you don’t trust them for following the letter of the law is, frankly, unreasonable.
I will question your sources for your claims because they strike me as biased and in some cases just inaccurate.
The declarations of police abuse and corruption come based off high-profile cases and ignore the reality that these cases are high-profile because we have such a high standard required of our police, and when they overstep the boundaries it does not go well for them.
I do not claim that the police are the law, and none of the statements I have made suggest that. I have asserted that the Police are bound to the law and must act within it, and that means challenging the law guarantees a face off with police. How you handle that face off will effect how the police treat you, and you must be prepared to face the consequences of that face off.
That does not excuse police of any responsibility – but one needs to consider how activists behave when police follow the letter of the law. If you politely agree to go to prison to make a point of how foolish the law is (like a particularly famous activist did, thus starting a dramatic social change within his country) then you make a particular statement and the police become responsible for any brutality or ill-treatment that ensues.
If, on the other hand, you kick and scream yelling about how your freedom’s are being abused – then expect the police to use force to follow out the law as they are legally required to. That is not their fault – you have chosen to resist arrest to make a point. Unfortunately for you, being arrested for protesting is not a breach of freedom of expression. You are often allowed to protest, but if someone complains or you become unruly enough to breach other people’s freedoms – then the police are obliged to request you to cease and desist because you got to make your point. People just didn’t want to hear.
Note. Freedom of speech and expression does not mean that people have to like you, agree with you or put up with you continuing. If you push it, they have a right to request you to stop and leave. If you refuse, then your liberties cease – because you are no longer expressing a right, but are infringing on other people’s rights. That’s when the Police become involved.
It pays to learn the difference between a freedom/liberty and a right. Rights have obligations linked to them – liberties do not. Legally, rights take precedence over freedoms. So if you infringe on others rights, your freedoms can be challenged.
I’d like to suggest we close this discussion – I’m in the privileged position of knowing you all, and I’m pretty confident that at this stage the real differences of opinion (and there are significant ones) are being overshadowed by communications breakdown. If we were sitting around a table together we’d still be arguing but we’d be understanding each other a lot more clearly.
Yous guys are fags. Cops and activists alike should be beaten with clubs.