Being A Member Of A Motorcycle Club Is Now Illegal

.......if any of it's members have a criminal record...who knows what farkers are on here..

Im outta here.....dont want to get locked up FFS !!

From: Guy Stanford <sstanfor@bigpond.net.au>
Date: Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Subject: [Delegates] NSW to act against bikie gang violence
To: MCC-Delegates <delegates@lists.mccofnsw.org.au>

This mornings Sydney Morning Herald

NSW to act against bikie gang violence
* Dylan Welch and Geesche Jacobsen
* February 18, 2009

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-to-a ... nce-200902
17-8ab5.html<http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-to-act-against-bikie-gang-violence-200902%0A17-8ab5.html>
OR
http://tinyurl.com/bu8qbm

Please go to the SMH site to read this online and THEN email to a friend, so
it can get 'most emailed/viewed status'...

That will pique media interest.

We need this issue in the mainstream press.

PLEASE GO TO THE PAGE AND EMAIL THE ARTICLE TO A FRIEND
(see "Email this story" under article end)

The South Australian legislation proposed to be brought into NSW does not
distinguish between "motorcycle clubs" and "bikie gangs"

The legislation is an effort to avoid the "separation of powers" of the
Westminster system of government, by relying upon an administrative process
only, rather than putting cases before the Courts, where proper evidence is
needed. Opinions can be dangerous as well as unreliable.

This is the same "process", in a different area, to the RTA having greater
powers over your license than the Courts have in NSW.

The SA laws make it an offence to associate with anyone who has a criminal
record and is a member of a club.
The "association" could be as benign as attending the same charity rides,
even if you are unaware of a persons criminal record.
Yet, you will be guilty by association - and the SA penalties are draconian,
like 5 years imprisonment and wallet-busting fines.

The law targets motorcycle clubs, although the word "motorcycle" does not
appear in the legislation.

The deep concern is that Police are unable to make a distinction between any
motorcycle clubs at all.

In South Australia, anyone who rides a Cruiser, such as a Harley or
look-alike, can expect to be detained for interrogation at the roadside and
have their answers to questions like "Who are you going to meet? Where are
you going? Who will you see there? Who will you be riding with?" recorded
into a database of "associations" alongside your details.

We have seen on multiple occasions, that laws designed for one purpose are
used for other purposes.

Remember the exhaust Sticker Tax?
$200 and 20 minutes to 2 hours of roadside hassles for a stupid law that was
eventually overthrown, but brought in to "curb excesses of motorcyclists".
The Police and DEC claimed that because they had booked so many riders, that
the law was therefore justified.
If you didn't have an exhaust label, the assumption was, your bike was
illegally loud.
This was lazy Policing based on middle-class moral panic that "all
motorcycles are noisy", rather than identifying the ones that were actually
noisy.

Middle-class moral panic on crime is whipped up by the Fear Industry,
encouraged by politicians in need.
What is the real problem? Good press coverage to be seen to be "in control"?
This government in NSW is desperate to look like they are doing something,
so beware of spin and misleading statements.

Adequate law already exists.

The Police need to pick up their game on the criminal element, rather than
resort to "stereotyping" and re-classifying minor offences as major ones and
reclassifying motorcycle riders as "criminals by association". That is lazy,
morally reprehensible and just plain wrong.

We have spent years showing the public we are just ordinary citizens who
choose to ride motorcycles, to counter stereotyping of the past.
So now, the NSW Police Minister wants more stereotyping to be seen to be
doing something.

I do not exist to further the personal career of a desperate politician.

This proposal is attempted fraud.

Guy

Dont fret Hoff ... Thats just in SA ...

In NSW we can hang out with as many low lifes and degenerates as we like .. basically the entire HCSC

Dont fret Hoff ... Thats just in SA ...

In NSW we can hang out with as many low lifes and degenerates as we like .. basically the entire HCSC

The South Australian legislation proposed to be brought into NSW

Who is this Guy Stanford? He sounds like your typical scare-mongerer. Twists the facts to work people into a state of hysteria for his own purpose... whatever they are.

The day I see an ordinary motorcyclist locked up for going on a ride with a few of their mates from KSRC, just for that reason, is the day I will eat my hat. And probably even a shoe whilst I'm at it!

Who is this Guy Stanford? He sounds like your typical scare-mongerer

Guy is head honcho with the Motorcycle Council, he has worked for the rights of motorcyclists for many many years & has had some good results, He is representing a wide range of clubs Ardy & yes he tends to whip us a frenzy but its the only way to get the average joe sit up & take notice. We need a voice & the MCC have direct links with pollies like Greg Hurst etc, without people like Guy we would just get walked over with draconian laws.

As for this stuff about Outlaw klubs..... they seem to be doing a good job with wiping themselves out

I remember thinking back when I first got my Licence, that I was hard done by for being booked for Speeding for anything less than 20kph over and never actually did. Sure, I got kniocked, but it was for stuff a tad quicker than $20 over the spending limit!! It was accepted practice to sit on 120kph in a 100k zone and most of the boys in blue wouldn't bat an eyelid at anything unless it was 125+ in a 100 zone. I have watched as each decade, the margin tolerated prior to an infringement notice being issued has dropped and dropped and dropped. Back then they wouldn't worry about you cruising along either on my old Honda400 or the old Ducati, nor in the HG Premier or the ZG 351 Fairlane I had in those days, at anything around the 120 mark. The roads were shit, our bikes and cars had crap tyres and shit handling with totally crap brakes. They were often evil beasts which would bite if pushed around the wrong way. Yet, it was perfectly safe to do $1.20 on the open rd. ......Roll on two decades and it's now accepted practice to issue infringement notices at 6kph over the national limit or cop a picture in the mail for same!!! Guy Stanford can whip up some hysteria any time in my books!

Roll on two decades and it's now accepted practice to issue infringement notices at 6kph over the national limit or cop a picture in the mail for same!!!

What really gives me the sh!ts is that vehicle manufacturers are allowed a 10% tolerance on speedo accuracy!!! and yet you can get an infringment notice for being 6% over the limit.

this bloke Sanford..stanford really Damien Cognodnotto in real life....

Guy Stanford is one of the most well-respected motorcycle spokesmen in Australia.

Damian Codognotto is a tired old man who had his day 30+ years ago, and really should go lawn bowling. His most recent attempt at whipping up a frenzy in Vic, was an embarrassment to himself and motorcyling in Victoria.

As Gos said, the difference between the two is who has and who lacks that magic feature, "credibility".

MRA has no clout compared to the MCC anyway. One organises toy runs & the other tackles real agendas head on

Roll on two decades and it's now accepted practice to issue infringement notices at 6kph over the national limit or cop a picture in the mail for same!!!

What really gives me the sh!ts is that vehicle manufacturers are allowed a 10% tolerance on speedo accuracy!!! and yet you can get an infringment notice for being 6% over the limit.

I'm pretty sure that the tolerance is only allowed for cases of speedo reading higher than actual and not lower (which would make the car unroadworthy), and that it is purposed design to reduce accidental speeding. My only real problem with the practice is the inflated mileage figures because of it. But that's what a speedo healer or larger tires are for.

Roll on two decades and it's now accepted practice to issue infringement notices at 6kph over the national limit or cop a picture in the mail for same!!!

What really gives me the sh!ts is that vehicle manufacturers are allowed a 10% tolerance on speedo accuracy!!! and yet you can get an infringment notice for being 6% over the limit.

I'm pretty sure that the tolerance is only allowed for cases of speedo reading higher than actual and not lower (which would make the car unroadworthy), and that it is purposed design to reduce accidental speeding. My only real problem with the practice is the inflated mileage figures because of it. But that's what a speedo healer or larger tires are for.

ADR states that a speedo can read 10% over plus 4km/h. It can not read under.

I am with AARDVark, these laws are not about targeting law abiding people who meet on weekends to go for a social ride, yes these laws in essence could be used against a social group like KSRC or any other motorcylce forum but for what purpose? We are not a true club that has elected members or even a constitution so in effect by are not a club nor are we considered a gang. It about stopping thugs who use a gang mentality to extort people, sell and distribute illicit drugs. It is about time some one banned them, ffs we ban terrorist organisations that don't even exist in Australia nor have they ever ventured or mentioned Australia but these gangs are able to do their own thing.

Personally Guy has missed the point on this one and should perhaps be lobbying for no tolls and a more equitable insurance system for motorcyclists.

Nick

ThanX for posting up Hoff . . . I usually receive MCC emails, but I hadn't seen this one. Interesting.

Guy Stanford is the man - I've been involved in many events he has organised over the years, and from my experience they have always been, to benefit motorcyclists. My 2c anyway.

I know this is digging out an oldish thread, but I read an interesting article in the paper today related to this issue and written by a very moderate and well credentialed author.

Beware giving police a bigger stick

Date: March 12 2009

George Morgan

The politics of law and order is determined as much by what is implied as what is actually said in public.

Recent media reports have attributed a spate of violence in Sydney to bikie warfare, suggesting gang rivalries based on drugs and prostitution are behind the incidents. Such conflict is difficult to police because members of bike subcultures rarely speak to outsiders, let alone to the constabulary, even where one of their own is murdered or violently assaulted.

Public anxiety about organised crime is magnified by television dramas such as Underbelly and strengthens the case of those who seek to extend police powers.

It was no surprise, therefore, to hear the Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, call for the State Government to enact legislation similar to the South Australian Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act. Under this law, passed last year, Scipione's equivalent can ask the Government to declare a gang a "proscribed organisation" if it is deemed to be a front for criminal activities, and to empower police to limit the association between gang members. When asked about the police already having extensive powers under the criminal code, Scipionesaid those responsible for the violence were "terrorists".

In the post-September 11, 2001, world, Western governments have passed laws curtailing rights on the pretext that global terrorism requires extraordinary measures: the conventional armoury is insufficient to deal with those seeking to destabilise the state.

In recent years those from Muslim and, in particular, Middle Eastern backgrounds have endured unprecedented surveillance, and many law-abiding citizens, such as Mohamed Haneef, have been persecuted.

Scipione's gambit suggests that the definition of terrorism should be extended to include clan violence that has no apparent global or treasonous dimension. He is gesturing towards recent reports that Lebanese men are joining bikie gangs in large numbers. He is playing on popular fears that those from Middle Eastern backgrounds are a fifth column: that they seek to undermine the national way of life, regardless of the fact that many come from families which have lived in Australia for generations.

Nobody is suggesting Osama bin Laden has any association with bikie violence. Nor has anyone argued that it is directed at political destabilisation or generating mass anxiety. But those who play dog-whistle politics, such as Scipione, never let truth get in the way of the campaign for more police powers.

Under the SA legislation, members of a proscribed organisation would be liable to harsh penalties if they associated or communicated with each other. But what a gang is and whether it is a formal organisation are difficult to establish. These questions have preoccupied authorities since the moral panic of the late 19th century over larrikin street violence. Then, those who sought extended police powers were vague about the nature of the threat this extra muscle would be directed towards. Who were the larrikins and what sort of behaviour could be classified as larrikinism?

Similarly today the problem is that joining the Bandidos is not like joining the local RSL. These guys don't fill out forms. The evidence of affiliation must be circumstantial: wearing a certain item of clothing or a badge; undergoing an initiation ceremony in the presence of witnesses who can testify in court. Rarely is such evidence made available to police, and even if it were it is still legally dubious that such a collectivity could be deemed an organisation in the eyes of the law.

What happens where links between putative gang members extend beyond their bikie-criminal association? What if they are members of the same family? The SA legislation is reminiscent of Joh Bjelke-Petersen's criminal assembly laws of the 1970s under which Queensland police were entitled to define small public gatherings as protest marches and disperse them.

There is, of course, precedent for legislation prohibiting organisations. In 1950 the Menzies government passed a law to proscribe the Communist Party, but the High Court declared this unconstitutional. The grounds were that, while the Commonwealth had the power to deal with subversive activities it could not simply use legislation to declare an organisation guilty of such subversion.

While the SA law is different, it is also arguable that it has a greater potential for curtailing liberties. It gives the state power to regulate the social interactions of citizens simply by defining them as organisation members and independent of the need to establish their guilt in other criminal proceedings. Such a move is invidious and could only occur in a society habituated to the idea that these are extreme times requiring extreme measures.

George Morgan is a senior lecturer in the school of humanities/centre for cultural research at the University of Western Sydney.

I thought the following quote in particular was quite interesting "it is also arguable that it has a greater potential for curtailing liberties. It gives the state power to regulate the social interactions of citizens simply by defining them as organisation members and independent of the need to establish their guilt in other criminal proceedings"