Do we live in a 'police state"?

[old man emu]

Do we live in a police state? A 'police state" refers to a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police). The definition varies depending on the values of the person using the term — some think if a government uses electronic or digital surveillance it's a police state, while others believe it takes the loss of more freedoms to make a police state.

 

Consider the vast numbers of laws and Regulations we live with - from sensible laws that prohibit murder, to the trivial, such as the prohibition of a home-owner to change a tap washer - must be done by a licensed plumber. When the laws and regulations sit inscribed in the law books of the State, they are fairly innocuous, but when they begin to be policed, is when the repressive control starts.

 

When we use the word "police" we think of the "boys in blue", but they are a very small portion of the instigators of repression. At least the police constable who speaks to you about an alleged offence has name which must be given. Think of all those people hiding in offices, making decisions that directly affect you. Does your building development application answer all the compliance questions correctly. Does your claim against an insurance policy meet the criteria for coverage? 

 

It is the hidden surveillance of our actions and lives by persons who are rarely held accountable for their actions that creates a police state. Objecting to a decision by one of these faceless people will only involve massive financial cost, but unproductive use of time and cause unnecessary stress to find out that "The Law is the Law, to be applied without a tincture of discretion"

 

 

[facthunter]

Whether we are or not at this stage , we certainly have gone a bit closer in the last 8 years. Our ability to get information under FOI is diminished, police raids on a Murdoch  writer's PRIVATE address and the ABC's offices have attracted adverse comment  all over the world... Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

I'm one of your lot OME. We remember freedom.

 

Maybe the over-regulated state will not withstand the coming storms of climate change, resource depletion and overpopulation.  Well we will not be around to see it, which means we have lived in good times.

 

In my own way, I try to resist by ignoring excessive regulations. I say that I do this in honour of my grandfather who fought in WW1 against what he saw as evil. But the fight he was most proud of was helping bash up some pommy MP's who had been bashing a tied-up pommy soldier. This was the story he told to the grandson on his knee.

 

I am hoping that the aftermath of the fires will result in a lessening of regulation of landowners with respect to fire precautions. On our farm, we are prohibited from doing anything at all, I think. You would need to hire a lawyer to find out. I sent an email asking  the PM weeks ago and from time to time get a response that my query has been passed on... not answered, but passed on...

 

 

[facthunter]

The last "communication" I had (or tried to) with Scotty from wherever, He replied that He looked after his "constituents"( meaning electorate) even though he was a FEDERAL minister...FFS what an attitude? Nev

 

 

[willedoo]

Not sure how it is these days, but the protocol used to be that you directed requests to any minister or pm through your local Federal member. If you don't do that, they can throw it in the bin, but if it comes via your local member, they have to provide a reply.

 

If the pm or minister in question is your local member, you obviously contact them directly.

 

 

[Litespeed]

The answer is pretty much yes.

 

Ever since the first fleet arrived, the power of state was very much totalitarian. To the point of the rum corps doing mutiny when they where scared of losing their power.

 

It still has a lot of police state ideas and masses of laws to destroy any seen as not on their side.

 

 

[Yenn]

If you think this is a police state I think you are very wrong. We have plenty of useless statutes on the books, but they are not policed, mainly because the police have better things to do.

 

The police are regularly disregarded as we see with criminals on parole committing further offences after the police had tried to deny parole or bail.

 

The overseeing bodies looking at banking and building construction, for example seem to be doing nothing so that the rich end of town is kept happy.

 

Maybe the people who most think we live in a police state are the aboriginals, but a lot of the time they bring it upon themselves.

 

Beurocratic would be a better description than police state. 

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not the bureaucrats who are biffoing you when you protest , Yenn..   Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

Ever notice the treatment anyone gets when they protest a policy the police like or their police masters?

 

Very definition of a police state.

 

You only have to see the police thugging and capsicum spraying anyone who dies not tow the line. Protesting is legal unless you upset their powerful friends.

 

Then even grandma gets batoned and arrested.

 

I have witnessed many a legal and peaceful protest charged with horses. You touch the horse as it charges you, that's assault police.

 

Notice the cops cover their badge name or only use a number, that's police state tactics. 

 

Qld tried to use terrorism style laws and 10 years goal on climate protestors.

 

Looks very police state to me.

 

When the rule of law and police might is used to crush dissent, that is a police state.

 

When the powerful industry's like mining and banking are immune from the law but you are not?

 

That is a police state.

 

Or call it a fascist state.

 

At best we are a democracy one day every three years. But do not expect a free and fair election.

 

 

[spacesailor]

" to be applied without a tincture of discretion"

 

Unless it's a TAX law, THEN your Guilty until you can prove your innocence.

 

That is without a doubt. Police State.

 

spacesailor 

 

 

[willedoo]

Trying to define a Police State is like asking how long is a piece of string. Nazi Germany and the East German DDR are definite contenders. In so called liberal Western nations like ours, it's often how the individual perceives it. Take the climate protests for example, many are for it and many against. A lot of people in this country that are against the protesters, would be all for them doing it in Russia or China against their respective governments because it fits the narrative. There's a lot of hypocrisy involved.

 

 

[onetrack]

The greatest threat to our freedoms is not in our own countrys laws, Politicians or Police or other regulatory Authorities - it is from the faceless Global Corporations and their operatives that will eventually control every aspect of your life, as they set the rules and you have no recourse to anything they decide - because they decide that they will contact you when it suits them - you cannot contact them.

 

Ever tried to sell on eBay or Amazon on your terms? Or start up with Uber on your terms? Or challenge their "rules" and "terms and conditions"? Not likely, because these uncontactable behemoths set all the rules, and there is no way you can buck them.

 

The Biblical prophecies speaks of the adverse living conditions of Earths final days, by "not being able to buy or sell, unless you have the Mark of the Beast, in your right hand, or your forehead".

 

A "Beast" in Biblical prophecy is a ruthless Govt, or a ruthless Authority, or a ruthless Corporation with money as its God.

 

Look at people today, they are never seen with a mobile phone out of their right hand, because without worship of the Great Gods - Apple, Samsung, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Banks and financial institutions, you are nothing, and you can do nothing. You can neither trade nor buy nor sell, unless you meet the specific terms and conditions and rules and regulations of those Corporations - who set those "laws", without any input from you, or reference to you.

 

It won't be long before we have a chip inserted in our forehead to enable personal tracking, and personal details to be available to these Corporations and Govts and Authorities.

 

We are gradually being denied our personal freedoms and democratic decision-making by faceless Robber Barons in countries we have often never been to, let alone agreed to have rule over us.

 

Little wonder Britain exited the EU, they faced the persistent and seemingly innocuous removal of their sovereignty, and decision-making, to bureaucrats in Brussels - just as we face the same removal of our personal rights by insidious Corporate moves.

 

Did anyone see the latest Corporate Greed stunt by Telstra and Rio Tinto and all the major global Corporations recently? They have now decided that if you wish to be a supplier to these behemoths, you will be obliged to wait up to 92 days to be paid, instead of the normal 30 days after invoicing, as used by most businesses.

 

But - if you whinge and complain that this delay is affecting your businesses profitability and cash flow - then these Global Corporations have entered into a deal with another Global Corporation to finance your wait for your money (that you're entitled to by law, regardless), by charging you 2% to pay you in 30 days, instead of 92 days. What a bunch of thieving crooks!

 

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/rio-tinto-telstra-carnell/

 

 

[spacesailor]

"- then these Global Corporations have entered into a deal with another Global Corporation to finance your wait for your money (that you're entitled to by law, regardless), by charging you 2% to pay you in 30 days, instead of 92 days. What a bunch of thieving crooks! "

 

Does this government allow corporate manipulation ?, if it does it's as bad as those corporations.

 

spacesailor 

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not the bureaucrats who are biffoing you when you protest , Yenn..  

 

   This one was from yesterday. Today I can't post on any but his "OFF Topic". so here goes.... Test 1 … yes I have logged back in.….Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Lots of doom and gloom here. Does anyone remember the good old days before the police state.

 

Those days when young men were scooped up into the military, to fight for what we now know were wrongful wars, such as Korea, Egypt, Viet Nam.

 

When the payment you made by cheque to buy something had a transfer fee. But that was before the banks really learnt how to screw you. Funny but I find banking easier and cheaper nowadays.

 

Those days when if you wanted a beer on Sunday, you had to travel to another town and buy a meal at the pub to be eligible to get a drink.

 

When it was illegal to take a photograph from an aeroplane looking nearly vertical.

 

 

[spacesailor]

AND in the the old days,

 

Only the banks could lock you out of your house or busines, now the tax office, can change your locks & sell your chattels.

 

Want to say more but thought better of getting on the  wrong side of the nastiest people. 

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce]

Telstra  were always slow payers. Once we visited our son and found a red-printed final demand for a telephone bill. The son later said that he was owed $10,000 months  before that bill arrived and he had told them that he would pay when they did.

 

Luckily, my wife, after an hour on the phone, found a sympathetic telstra person to sort out things. 

 

I said that they would just cut his phone off and it would take thousands of dollars and years of time to fight them legally.

 

 

[Yenn]

Telstra may be slow payers but they make up for it with billing. They will bill you for something you never had and keep going on about it. You prove that you don't owe anything and they say OK and next month, there it is again.

 

I put Telstra and BOC British Oxygen Company in the same group. BOC will put Dunn and Bradstreet onto you after about6 months of trying to rip you off. One simple letter then and it is all fixed.

 

The trouble with Telstra is that they probably have access to your money due to your account.

 

 

[Bruce]

On the police state argument, personally I don't feel like I live in one. I go about my business with no fear of the police whatsoever, and I bet all you other guys are the same.

 

Yes, we are over-regulated, but so are the police I know. For example, this mate of mine, who was at the time a policeman, didn't feel free to have a single glass of wine with his meal when visiting us on a weekend day. Why? Because it would be bad for him at work to have any alcohol in his system if randomly breathalized on his way home. 

 

I put the blame for over-regulation on the fools who want the government to protect everybody all the time.

 

 

[NT5224]

Hi folks!

 

Sorry but Im going to call busllshit on some of you cossetted darlings shreiking 'Police State".  Thats strong language. 

 

Im basically apolitical, (although slightly left leaning) and have to say while it has its faults, liberal democracies like Australia are among the best places on this planet to live and we're all bloody lucky to do so. Much as we ridicule and lament our home grown politicians, the apparatus of state,  and the bumbling incompetence of our  executive and bureaucracy,  they are nothing on the horrors people in other regions have to endure. 

 

So lets guard against the erosion of our freedoms and liberties and the growth of ever pervasive surveillance in our lives. Lets resist against  the senseless culture of  airport security which lines the pockets of well connected security contractors and has no  genuine security value. And lets turn the spotlight on  political and judicial abuses where they occur, and reign in the appalling powers of the ATO, and hold  it and its executives to account like the rest of us.

 

A healthy democracy should be constantly challenging and checking itself. Discussions like this one are part of the process. But at least we are free to have the conversation and ask the questions

 

Alan

 

 

[old man emu]

Actually, when I used the term 'police state' I was inferring that our lives are impacted by a myriad of rules made by our lawmakers, ostensibly so that our society will run smoothly. It is the intricate details in these rules that reduces our freedoms. The worst thing in many of our laws is the introduction of "strict liability" which is the antithesis of "innocent until proven guilty".

 

If one is accused of doing something which breaches a strict liability law, then one has no option but to plead "guilty" and present information in an attempt to mitigate the penalty that will be imposed.  That is, of course, if you can mount a strong enough legal argument to cast doubt on some or all elements of the breach. So, you might get out of the monetary penalty, but all the mitigation in the world won't result in a dismissal of the charge.

 

That is the meaning of "police state" that I was intending to have discussed.

 

 

[spacesailor]

The broader term of police state is still correct. 

 

State , Federal , ASIC, now, TAX POLICE.

 

If one doesn,t get the other will !.

 

If never worked, never been on the Dole.

 

You will still have a paper-trail link between SocialSecurity and the Tax Bureau. Then its over to the secret police, to get all the your personal details.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[willedoo]

I understand what old man emu is saying, regarding the definition as relating to lawmakers and not law enforcers. If our system works as intended with the separation of powers, the police remain solely as enforcers of legislation.

 

The question is not really whether this or any other country could be termed a police state, but rather at what point they or we become one. It's always an incremental thing unless you go to sleep in 1972 and suddenly wake up in 2040. As time goes on, more laws are made and a certain amount of them will reduce freedoms. Due to population increases and growing crime, there will always be a place for new laws. And as long as all our bums point to the ground, the day will never come when legislators announce that we now have enough laws and we can start reducing the number of legislators and bureaucrats.

 

Let's think about parliament for a minute. Why are they there? Are they there to have non-partisan debates about what to do to fix the country. That would be nice, but unfortunately as much chance as me winning the lotto. The reality is, that apart from trying to score blows on their opposition, most of their work involves formulating, debating and legislating new laws. If they didn't have laws to pass, they would all sit around staring at each other like the drongos they are. Let's say theoretically, 1,000 new laws or regulations come into force every year. That will happen every year of every generation's life and the rate will possibly multiply by a factor.

 

So that's my opinion on it. It's when, not if. It's incremental and will never stop. Having said that, a certain amount of new laws are good laws and I think overall, good laws still outnumber bad or unjust laws.

 

 

[spacesailor]

IF it works as intended!  

 

Most things out of Parliament are screwed up befor they finnish their debate.

 

When a child leaves shool, then heads overseas,  before starting any jobs, how on their return,can the Tax  ,social security ,And the 

 

Australian Electoral commission, have All their details, with the boys in uniform banging on your door,

 

Customs told someone who passed it on.

 

NOW ISN,T THIS A POLICESTATE

 

spacesailor

 

 

[NT5224]

I understand what old man emu is saying, regarding the definition as relating to lawmakers and not law enforcers. If our system works as intended with the separation of powers, the police remain solely as enforcers of legislation.

 

The question is not really whether this or any other country could be termed a police state, but rather at what point they or we become one. It's always an incremental thing unless you go to sleep in 1972 and suddenly wake up in 2040. As time goes on, more laws are made and a certain amount of them will reduce freedoms. Due to population increases and growing crime, there will always be a place for new laws. And as long as all our bums point to the ground, the day will never come when legislators announce that we now have enough laws and we can start reducing the number of legislators and bureaucrats.

 

Let's think about parliament for a minute. Why are they there? Are they there to have non-partisan debates about what to do to fix the country. That would be nice, but unfortunately as much chance as me winning the lotto. The reality is, that apart from trying to score blows on their opposition, most of their work involves formulating, debating and legislating new laws. If they didn't have laws to pass, they would all sit around staring at each other like the drongos they are. Let's say theoretically, 1,000 new laws or regulations come into force every year. That will happen every year of every generation's life and the rate will possibly multiply by a factor.

 

So that's my opinion on it. It's when, not if. It's incremental and will never stop. Having said that, a certain amount of new laws are good laws and I think overall, good laws still outnumber bad or unjust laws.

 

`This is a good point and well put. Gave me cause for thought. 

 

I agree completely that politicians will always want to 'do stuff' to make themselves feel important and leave their mark,  and adding to regulation is often what they do. 

 

However in passing legislation,  I believe it is not uncommon  for an act to  stipulate that it repeals or replaces earlier legislation, or at least clarify how it aligns with what is already there. Otherwise, there'd be conflicting bits of legislation everywhere.  Bush lawyers would have a field day!

 

But we are certainly  becoming over-regulated. Like many rationale Aussies I totally support regulation (of sensible things). Its the non sensible that gripes me. I am all for  income taxation and would happily pay even higher taxes if that money was spent on causes that I consider worthwhile for our society: Health, education and public welfare. These things make our society happier healthier and more equitable.  I am more dubious about bankrolling politicians' personal expense accounts,  or investing billions on  leaky diesel powered submarines.

 

Surely our number one strategic threat in Australia is now climate change and associated impacts. That's where the money should be going, not to our security apparatus. Less the  'Police' state, more the 'Firefighter' state?   

 

 Alan