A new threat

[dpex]

Do the anti-gang laws now operating in Australia, and set to be introduced here, threaten we bikers?

The answer seems to be a declaratory YES!

From NZ Herald, Tuesday 16th, "Declaring an organisation meant police had to apply to the Attorney-General when they were satisfied the group existed for criminal purposes or was a risk to public safety."

The intent of the law is, on face-value, aimed at restraining various gangs. I have no problem with that providing such restraint is applied to demonstrably illegal gangs. But note the last part of the above paragraph, ".....or was a risk to public safety".

Is that the thin edge of the wedge? Who determines the nature of the "risk"?

It appears the police have to make a case for such identification then apply to the Attorney General for an enforcement warrant. So far, so good. But is there a set of criteria, or some threshold requiring some minima even before an application for a warrant can be sought?

Apparently, that minima is, "....or was a risk to public safety".

So what happens when anal-retentive, Ernie Dickbrain reports he and his family were terrorised by a group of 20 KBers who passed him buy on SH16, in lawful procession?

It is quite clear that such a complaint could be measured against this "quite generic" legislation and KBers could be forced to restrict group ridings to say six bikes per group.

The Herald article goes on to say, "If this application is successful, we will then apply for control orders to be placed on the individual members of that declared organisation,"

This means we, as individuals, could be forced to submit to arbitrary and thus unknowable restrictions on our rding freedoms.

Now then, your initial reaction might be, 'Nar. They wouldn't apply a law aimed at bad-arses to ordinary folk going about their business touring as a bike group.'

Really? Then explain how it was that the new Boy-racer legistlation was applied to an employee driving a front-end loader on the streets of Westport in a manner deemed "unacceptable". The police seized the loader under the powers of the Boy-racer legislation. And some smug cop was quoted as saying, "That's what the legislation was designed for. To stop this sort of thing and severely penalise a malfactor 'before' he she have their day in court."

You will all, no doubt, appreciate that the Boy-racer legislation could be applied by any mean-spirited cop (of which there are few among the many good) to any two KBers who are riding in echelon, safely passing car-after-car, and then defined as racing each other. Our bikes can be seized on the spot. There is no right of immediate reply.

A further example of law being stretched: The promoters of the anti-smacking law asserted "No parent will be prosecuted for using light smacks to maintain the safety of a child," yet there is now a father being prosecuted for flicking his son on the ear to dissuade him from racing across a busy road against the fathers' perfectly reasonable instructions.

And so, you see, once the police have a new toy to play with, "a new law" they can apply it when and where they choose. The victim of any misuse of a law must then face paying thousands of dollars to defend the misuse in court.

In my opinion we need to fight hard to make sure any such 'Gang' laws are made way more specific in description and application to the point where they cannot be applied to folk going about their lawful business.

[dpex]

Excuse my stupidity Dark Universe, but could you change the text colour back to white.

[davereid]

Do the anti-gang laws now operating in Australia, and set to be introduced here, threaten we bikers?

The answer seems to be a declaratory YES!

From NZ Herald, Tuesday 16th, "Declaring an organisation meant police had to apply to the Attorney-General when they were satisfied the group existed for criminal purposes or was a risk to public safety."

The intent of the law is, on face-value, aimed at restraining various gangs. I have no problem with that providing such restraint is applied to demonstrably illegal gangs. But note the last part of the above paragraph, ".....or was a risk to public safety".

Is that the thin edge of the wedge? Who determines the nature of the "risk"?

It appears the police have to make a case for such identification then apply to the Attorney General for an enforcement warrant. So far, so good. But is there a set of criteria, or some threshold requiring some minima even before an application for a warrant can be sought?

Apparently, that minima is, "....or was a risk to public safety".

So what happens when anal-retentive, Ernie Dickbrain reports he and his family were terrorised by a group of 20 KBers who passed him buy on SH16, in lawful procession?

It is quite clear that such a complaint could be measured against this "quite generic" legislation and KBers could be forced to restrict group ridings to say six bikes per group.

The Herald article goes on to say, "If this application is successful, we will then apply for control orders to be placed on the individual members of that declared organisation,"

This means we, as individuals, could be forced to submit to arbitrary and thus unknowable restrictions on our rding freedoms.

Now then, your initial reaction might be, 'Nar. They wouldn't apply a law aimed at bad-arses to ordinary folk going about their business touring as a bike group.'

Really? Then explain how it was that the new Boy-racer legistlation was applied to an employee driving a front-end loader on the streets of Westport in a manner deemed "unacceptable". The police seized the loader under the powers of the Boy-racer legislation. And some smug cop was quoted as saying, "That's what the legislation was designed for. To stop this sort of thing and severely penalise a malfactor 'before' he she have their day in court."

You will all, no doubt, appreciate that the Boy-racer legislation could be applied by any mean-spirited cop (of which there are few among the many good) to any two KBers who are riding in echelon, safely passing car-after-car, and then defined as racing each other. Our bikes can be seized on the spot. There is no right of immediate reply.

A further example of law being stretched: The promoters of the anti-smacking law asserted "No parent will be prosecuted for using light smacks to maintain the safety of a child," yet there is now a father being prosecuted for flicking his son on the ear to dissuade him from racing across a busy road against the fathers' perfectly reasonable instructions.

And so, you see, once the police have a new toy to play with, "a new law" they can apply it when and where they choose. The victim of any misuse of a law must then face paying thousands of dollars to defend the misuse in court.

In my opinion we need to fight hard to make sure any such 'Gang' laws are made way more specific in description and application to the point where they cannot be applied to folk going about their lawful business.

I hate gangs with a passion.

But all this kind of law does is show us how much Labour hates freedom. It lies with the loss of the privy council, loss of unanimous jury, loss of right not to be re-tried for the same crime, elctoral finance act etc etc etc all stolen from us by the socialists.

[James Deuce]

Good lord, you have one supporter.

The normal Kiwi response is, "Nah mate, doesn't happen here", followed by a big wimp out when it does happen here.

Don't forget to take a Diazepam from time to time.

[Tank]

Come on guys - this is never going to happen.

Heck 9 years in power and this is the first time they mention it. Its never been part of their policy documents yet - and I'm sure wont be in any they issue for this election.

heck Labour actually commented that it was against human rights or the like when Michael Laws tried to get the patches banned from the high street.

Its nothing more than a soundbite.

And if you read his actual comment its ONE person in labour looking at it and if HE thinks its a good idea then POSSIBLY it will be looked at properly.

Typical Labour spin-doctoring.

[QMOTO]

Gangs with patches should be encouraged, if Alqueda (how ever ya spell it) had patches it would make identifcation easy wouldnt it

[CookMySock]

I think this sort of speak is just a wind up. How the fuck this legislation can be applied to any reasonable citizen is absurd. "Threat" ? I highly doubt it, unless it threatens YOUR bizo.

Steve

[slofox]

We could have it applied to that big gang that wears blue and drives around in cars with blue and red lights on them couldn't we....? And what about those Rotarians? Or the Lions Clubbers? And golfers - you can get your head busted in with those danged golf balls.......THEY oughta be banned as well.......and rugby players......they injure each other every week......and so the list goes on...

[slimjim]

Gee's wonder if that includes My Club Logo.. wear that on my vest... while growing old disgracefully........and we ride in pack's......yes and have too been pulled over.. til young copper realised we were all greying.. Ulyssesnope its a Club Logonot a patch..

[Ixion]

It is stated that the SA law is targeted at "motorcycle gangs". Can someone provide a definition of a "motorcycle gang" that could not be extended to any group of motorcyclists?

The inherent prejudice is self evident if we consider that there is no statement that the laws are targeted at "car gangs". Yet I will bet that more of the bad guys drive cars than ride bikes.

To many cops (and politicans) motorcycle=gang=criminal.

It would be a small and all too easy step froma lsw banning "motorcycle gangs" to a law banning "motorcycles".

Dude you need to come along to BRONZ.

[Skyryder]

There's more here than gangs.

'Public safety' could be applied to extreem environmental groups and even legitimate protests.

I think this is just the opening shots. I'll wait and see just what comes up first before I declare good bad whatever. But bear in mind that when the Govt bought in the instant loss of licence no one stood up and cried foul except myself and Jim2.
So if you want your voice heard take to the streets.


Skyryder

[R6_kid:Me]

unless you are heading out as a group of bikers with the intent to undertake criminal activity then you won't have anything to worry about.

Furthermore they would only be able to ban you from an event where they believe you would be there with intent or the possibility to cause a disruption to that event.

As far as I know, all the KB meetups/rides etc i've been on have never fallen into either of the those two groups, nor are we a 'patched organisation'.

The only 'criminal' activites undertaken by most people on this site are much more likely to fall under 'boy racer' legislation or dangerous driving than that of 'criminal gang activity'.

[mstriumph]

KB isn't a 'gang', nor is it a 'club' or 'association'

KB is a website ...... Spank said so

[dpex]

Dangerous, how this legislation can be applied to other than demonstrable arseholes is really easy. Say, for example, sufficient folk from this site decided it was worth mounting a physical protest. We gather together,say, 100 bikers and head for Wellington.

Some us wear hi viz, most others wear leathers. The cops get a complaint from some anal retentive that he and his wife and kids were scared shitless by 100 bikers passing by.

That's all the power boys need. A complaint which demonstrates the activities of a group are upsetting the public....and the bastards are bikers!

The cops could hound us to a standstill before we got past Taupo.

Generic law...and that is what is being proposed here...is very bad law. It provides unbridled power. And we know where unbridled power leads.

Our rights, as decent citizens, is being daily eroded by legislation....poorly considered in terms of the Human Rights Act, and such teeth as the gummy rules related to freedom of association.

Personally, I am sick and tired of idiot politicians being pushed by their bureaucratic masters (the real power behind the throne) to create generic laws...like the boy-racer law.

The fact of the matter is, there are many laws enabling the cops, the SFO, the IRD, et al, to roam over the arses of every gang in the country. But do they use those laws. Oh no. Why not? Because they simply haven't got the balls.

It's far easier to invoke generic laws, aimed at picking off the peripherals.

Look at what happened just last week. Two cops got caught planting a bug on an arsehole's car. Said arseholes saw the action as other arseholes interfering with their car. So they chased them and shot the shit out of them with air-rifles. Where the AOS while the cops were planting the bug? Around the bloody corner having a fag and a coffee instead of being right there, providing back-up, just in case.

The result of this fiasco? The cops come up smelling of roses and everyone weeps for the dead cop. The bad guys are being done for murder, despite the fact the cop died of a heart attack.

So the next step? Yes! Ban air-rifles.

That's the game, see, Dangerous. When incapable of offering a proper solution, ban it.

Will we be next? Ban bikers? They scare the fuck out of little Annie.

[Grahameeboy]

It is stated that the SA law is targeted at "motorcycle gangs". Can someone provide a definition of a "motorcycle gang" that could not be extended to any group of motorcyclists?

The inherent prejudice is self evident if we consider that there is no statement that the laws are targeted at "car gangs". Yet I will bet that more of the bad guys drive cars than ride bikes.

To many cops (and politicans) motorcycle=gang=criminal.

It would be a small and all too easy step froma lsw banning "motorcycle gangs" to a law banning "motorcycles".

Dude you need to come along to BRONZ.

What a load of bollocks....there is no prejudice...they are referring to "Gangs" who are identified by the fact that they ride bikes i.e. Hells Angel chapters and the like...never heard of "car gangs" although I guess gangs need transport...never hear of the Toyota Angels chapter....

Car gangs would be criminals who steal cars.

How you can link a group of motorcyclists going for a blat as a gang is ludicrous....BRONZ should be renamed "BRASSEDoff" as they have no real impact on stuff and just create stuff for the sheer hell of it...

Laws are only a problem if you break them...here is the definition of a gang

The police's definition of a gang is: a group of individuals, juvenile and or adult, who associate on a continuous basis, form an allegiance for a common purpose, and are involved in delinquent or criminal activity. This definition is simple and functional. It allows the police departments to take proactive law enforcement action normally before the gang gets an organized structure. The gang may range from a loose knit group of individuals who hang around together and commit crimes together, to a formal organization with a leader or ruling council, gang colors, gang identifiers, and a gang name.

Simple really...but not if you cannot get on the band wagon...

Peace be with us...enjoy life and learn to let go.

My rant at this silly thread..sorry