Being A Member Of A Motorcycle Club Is Now Illegal

[dave#3]

You might want to read his email on page 1, his vision is fairly short sighted if you are going to use the example that any Harley rider will be pulled on presumption that they are part of motorcycle gang. Your reasoning is flawed for why these laws shouldn't be passed, what you are saying is the law is okay but the application will not be, misuse only happens in extreme cases and if that means the majority of society are protected then so be it and to be honest if you lay down with dogs you are likely to come up with fleas.

Nick

No, I will never say that these are good laws. They're poor laws with good intentions. Creating laws that give police broad sweeping powers in pursuit of a minuscule portion of society is quite simply lazy and poor law making. Nothing more, nothing less. This has nothing to do with laying down with dogs and coming up with fleas, it has to do with authorities calling somebody who cuts down a tree an "environmental terrorist" and using anti-terrorism laws to detain the lumberjack indefinitely, without charge, and without independent oversight. Nowhere in this example is said lumberjack known to ride HD's, sell drugs, shoot people, or support religious extremists of any persuasion. If you think I'm over exaggerating have a look at this piece from our national broadcaster, or this from the US, or this, or this. Shall I continue?

And what precisely about Guy's email is "fairly short sighted".

[robracer]

A perspective from the other side:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFdnyDVB ... re=related

[Gosling1]

.....I was watching the news the other day and one of the clubs, Notorious MC, was described as a motorcycle club without motorcycles..
WTF is that about.??......

Notorious are pretty much the new heavies in Kings Cross. They are basically linked to one nightclub *identity* as his standover/protection guys for nightclubs in the Cross. Very few members of Notorious actually own or ride bikes, but they wear full colours (even the 14 year old kid members ) to identify themselves as 'bikers', when they are clearly not a real biker gang at all. Just a gang that wears biker colours....

The bloke who was killed at Sydney Airport, is the brother of one of the senior members of the HA's Guildford chapter. Not just any old HA member.... . The president of that particular branch had been trying for some time to get rival m/c gangs in Sidders to reduce the violence and resolve issues 'internally' and with a low profile. The fact that his brother has now been killed, in public, and the brother was not even a member of the HA's.....well the consequences of that will be felt some time down the road.....

The Comanchero's in Sidders have essentially been taken over by the lebanese in SW sydney. It too is a patch club that acts outside the long-established boundaries of normal patch club behaviour.....hits on family and home are now commonplace, and this was once sacred ground .....well, thanks to clubs like Notorious and the Comm's, those unwritten laws are now out the window.

The SA laws on 'consorting' are doomed to fail at the High Court. Victoria cannot follow suit with similiar laws, as they would breach the Victorian laws that have been established under their 'Bill of Rights'. Only NSW and Qld are expressing any real interest in picking up this legislation. The basic flaw with the propoosed laws is that guilt is established merely by 'association', prescribed by a politician, using secret and un-accesible police evidence - not by a Court of Law using normal evidientiary procedures. The removal of the Courts from establishing that a person is *guilty* of a crime, is the single and most crucial plank of the proposed laws, that will see them fail at any High Court challenge. A test-case involving the Finks MC in SA is currently with the SA Attorney-Generals department. This test-case will determine any High Court challenges to the proposed legislation.....

The real issue, and one that Mike Rann simply ignores in his pursuit of *breaking the gangs* - is that laws already exist to deal with biker crime, terrorists, being a member of a 'targeted group', whatever......these laws already exist. Crimes can and are already dealt with using existing laws. The question that is being asked, by people like the 'Free Australia Party'. is *why* do more draconian laws need to be introduced ? Why is it that the current laws are not being enforced to do the job ? Mike Rann either cannot or does not want to answer these questions.

All the above info is already in the public domain.

[Gosling1]

Just a quick addition to the above post from Robracer (great find mate)....

Anyone interested in a good background about OMC in Oz, needs to get a copy of "The Brotherhoods" by Art Veno. ISBN 1 86508 698 3.

Published in 2002, this is a contemporary review of outlaw m/c clubs in Oz, written by a bloke who lived in Monterey in 1964 when the local Hells Angels *legend* was born. He was 19 at the time. His account and history of the omc's in Oz is really quite good.

The below clip is typical TT trash-TV, however it does feature Art talking about the violence inherent in the culture, not long after 2 Bandidos members were shot in Geelong last year....



I really hope this thread can continue with some enlightened debate, and not be closed off. But I expect at some point it will be.....

[mick_dundee]

and what of a club like the ullyses, or god squad, who wear colours? (for want of a better term) altho several bike gangs convinced the ullyses to give up wearing their patches whilst riding through 1% turf )

It was one club, Rebels MC that went agro at Ulysses, and it wasn't about the back patches but the rollers and rockers they objected too.

As for the God squad, that's an interesting one as they do wear colours, that being siad, I can't remember the last time a God Squad, that's an interesting one as they do wear colours, that being siad, I can't remember the last time a God Squad bikie was even associated with paedophilia, gun running, amphetamines etc muh less convicted of same.

[aardvark]

Art Veno.

Hah... he saw a bloke riding a Harley once.

[Six Addict]

haha cmon aardy tell us what u really think

[Naked Twin]

Lets stick to some facts rather then what might could or has happened elsewhere.

The proposed laws for NSW as in SA are not a case of there are 5 motorcyclists from KSRC meeting up so lets harass them. That is media hysteria perpetrated by people like Guy who leave out pertinent facts when making an argument.

Firstly - Police have to apply to have a motorcycle club banned, they need to apply to the attorney general to do so with supporting evidence. The club has 30 days in which to reply why they should not be banned (outlawed) No they are not allowed to see the evidence the police have. If the attorney general agrees and I say IF they agree, then second rule applies. If you are found to meet more then 5 times in a 12 month period with a member of banned club then you may be prosecuted again may be prosecuted under the new laws. The only OMC that SA police have applied this new law against is the Finks and that is still before the attorney general.

If the police have enough laws, how is that these motorcycle gangs are able to do what they do almost without challenge? Do we want to wait until we have another fathers day massacre before we say enough is enough?

Nick

[Six Addict]

If the police have enough laws, how is that these motorcycle gangs are able to do what they do almost without challenge? Do we want to wait until we have another fathers day massacre before we say enough is enough?

so by your statement NIck, that current laws arent enough to curb the violence, criminal activity and menacing behaviour, what makes u think that introducing more laws will solve the problem??

i believe nick that its not the laws that are the problem, its the policing of them...laws dont automatically arrest people and bring them to justice so simply introducing them wont do squat...

If you are found to meet more then 5 times in a 12 month period with a member of banned club then you may be prosecuted

does this apply to family members or work colleagues?? how can u tell if the meeting is to arrange criminal activity?? and surely if u are meeting to arrange criminal activity, then thats a conspiracy charge (a law which already exists)... and if you're not meeting them to arrange criminal activity then basically you're being persecuted (prosecuted oops ) for knowing someone...and that nick is something that object to...

remember as hard as it sometimes is to believe, in our legal system we are innocent until proven guilty

Owen

[robracer]

does this apply to family members or work colleagues??

there are loop holes....the new law does not apply to family or religious groups, so the 1% ers can join Gods squad... quite simple really.

[Six Addict]

does this apply to family members or work colleagues??

there are loop holes....the new law does not apply to family or religious groups, so the 1% ers can join Gods squad... quite simple really.

but what if a family member is also a member of an OMC?? which takes precedence??

[Naked Twin]

If the police have enough laws, how is that these motorcycle gangs are able to do what they do almost without challenge? Do we want to wait until we have another fathers day massacre before we say enough is enough?

so by your statement NIck, that current laws arent enough to curb the violence, criminal activity and menacing behaviour, what makes u think that introducing more laws will solve the problem??

i believe nick that its not the laws that are the problem, its the policing of them...laws dont automatically arrest people and bring them to justice so simply introducing them wont do squat...

If you are found to meet more then 5 times in a 12 month period with a member of banned club then you may be prosecuted

does this apply to family members or work colleagues?? how can u tell if the meeting is to arrange criminal activity?? and surely if u are meeting to arrange criminal activity, then thats a conspiracy charge (a law which already exists)... and if you're not meeting them to arrange criminal activity then basically you're being persecuted (prosecuted oops ) for knowing someone...and that nick is something that object to...

remember as hard as it sometimes is to believe, in our legal system we are innocent until proven guilty

Owen

There is truth if what you say regarding policing, however the police are saying they don't have enough power to stop the gangs. So what do we do? We can not continue to sit by and wait for them to kill more innocent people. As I mentioned before I don't like when people (like Guy) use edited parts to make point that is not based on facts.

The meeting more then 5 times again it depends on how it is applied which I believe you are saying is the issue, well it could be the issue. However these family and associates that know they are breaking the law then they are guilty of a crime as well, you do not have to be involved in criminal activity knowledge of a crime and not saying anything is also a crime.

Nick

[Six Addict]

However these family and associates that know they are breaking the law then they are guilty of a crime as well, you do not have to be involved in criminal activity knowledge of a crime and not saying anything is also a crime.

so why create the law?????!!!!! if u know people are conspiring then you too are conspiring, so why the extra law?? when laws already exist?? if these laws are to weak, then ammend these laws, and dont create 2 laws for the one offence, cos u know that they will still find loopholes in them...

i believe also that a lot of the time, the police say they need more powers because of the political influence...

government wants to be seen to be tough on crime, police commissioner (who i would think is appointed by a politician but i could be wrong) then says we needs more powers to stop these gangs...

this does two things, supports the government (thats good to do if you're a police commissioner ) and gives them an excuse... in truth i think we need more police officers in the country, especially when u have the numerous squads and task forces currently set up around the country... i also believe they do the best they can given what i believe to be poor staffing, not weak laws...

[photomike666]

Does this all seem half arsed to anyone else?

You're an outlaw, so we'll pass a law that allows us to prosecute you for being an outlaw, rather than prosecute you for the laws you are breaking.

Where the outlaws are going to continue to break the law, as that's sort of what they do anyway.

[Gosling1]

....You're an outlaw, so we'll pass a law that allows us to prosecute you for being an outlaw, rather than prosecute you for the laws you are breaking.......

You have hit the nail fair square on the head mate.

The issue is that laws *already exist* to deal with the criminal activities of OMCG's. The problem is that the enforcers (the big blue gang ) are not resourced sufficiently enough to deal with the criminal activities. Its that simple. Mike Rann is just looking for an easy solution to a difficult (but not insurmountable) problem. Inventing new laws to just target specific elements is not the answer. Using existing laws as they were meant to be enforced, is.

Even the NSW Attorney General, John Hatzigeros, has expressed his reservations about the intent and enforcement of the new laws, as they are being formed in SA at the moment.......you have to ask the question - if the Chief law official of NSW thinks something is *not quite right* about the proposed laws, what is the problem ? There must be *something* in there that does not sit right......

And - has anyone notice the *deafening* silence from Victoria about this whole thing ?????? I think its something called 'Freedom of Association' within their Bill of Rights. They won't support this type of law. In fact, last year they rolled out the red carpet with police escorts for an OMCG ride through Vic....

The problem, as a lot of people see it, is that more (unenforcable) laws, result in a loss of freedom for everyone, not just the targeted groups.

Thats a fact. Recent attempts to enforce this type of legislation within Oz have been nothing but a spectacular failure, at a cost of millions. That was to a normal, law-abiding citizen of this country, who had done nothing wrong. Those people who think that this type of legislation won't be applied to 'normal' people (ie you or I) - time to wake up and smell the roses - it already has.

Don't think for one minute that I support the type of criminal activity undertaken by elements of the OMCG's. I don't. I abhor the violence.

But they, like everyone else, have a right to the basic presumption of "innocence until proven guilty". Through a court-based system. Not a piece of paper.

This new legislation removes that right, simply by virtue of 6 'contacts' within a 12-month period. No recourse to the courts. No evidence available from the other side to be examined. No right to be tried in court.

Thats not a just law. The proposed laws are more akin to those that existed within the Spanish Inqusition !