The court was not corrupt, indeed, but the fact of the matter is that, through a simple device the true course of justice was put off course - and that no matter how well the true course has been shown and admitted all round, the mechanics of the process demanded one result, but the facts known to all clearly defined the opposite.
Such are the concerns with this legislation. Once the mechanics are understood, the purpose (or spirit) of the law can be subservient to the letter of the law and, in the situation of my son's case, the true and fair outcome can be derailed by a similarly trivial device.
You may laugh at the 'under 12 netball team' example - but what you are totally missing is that the legislation ALLOWS for that to happen. Let me put it this way - the under 12 netball team HAS NO MORE PROTECTION from this legislation than 50 gun-toting Hells Angels on a rampage. The ONLY difference is, that getting the evidence to deal with the Hells Angels will (allegedly) be easier.
This is the point being made - about the legislation itself. The legislation allows for it to happen to ANYONE.
But let's look at where it could go...
Well, we start off with the Hells Angels, since they are in the news on this very matter. Now it must be said that there has, at this time, been no judgement against them under this legislation, but for the sake of argument, let us say that they are the first group to be declared a 'criminal organisation'. Now, presuming their departure from the scene does not leave a power gap, resulting in an all-out war of the remaining gangs, with extensive collateral damage - what next? If the presumption is that the Hells Angels were the baddest of the bad - then the degree of 'badness' in our society will fall. This means we will be more sensitive to the levels of 'bad' left behind and our tolerance will also drift down as well. If I were to equate this with noise pollution - once we stopped the freight trains, we would notice the semi-trailers - and then be complaining about them.
So, in out new 'social order' we encounter our next tier - and deal with them.
This is now purely hypothetical...:
Now we come across a true criminal family... Mum spends her days shoplifting and dad does nighttime burglary. Uncle has his dope growing out the back and takes care of a little 'protection' business. Grandpa takes care of the fencing of goods and looks after the books while grandma does a little bit of forgery and the regular con-artist outings where she is teaching her twin grand-daughters. Meanwhile the teenage sons are out stealing cars and maybe holding up the odd servo for some ready cash so they can go out on the town. It might be that they have not fallen before the strong arm of the law, because of a combination of factors - including minimising risks, keeping a low profile, having a keen awareness of their environment and a 'sixth sense' about things, a little bit of luck and a damn good lawyer on side, but their contribution to the crime scene well known by the local police.
Along comes this legislation, and the police now have a means to 'deal' with this family in a way they never had before. There is no doubt in anyone's mind (in officialdom) that they would be rendered almost ineffective by breaking them up, since there was a high degree of intra-family support for each others' 'activities'. So they put together a case, present it and the judge agrees - so another 'criminal organisation' is declared and the family is broken up and, according to the legislation, they have no means to challenge or even be informed of the 'evidence' that has caused the decimation.
While the detail of these examples may be erroneous, the possible trend is the point I want to illustrate. The application of the legislation can become more comfortable on a lessening degree of 'badness' - and while it may not have reached the under 12 netball team, it's a lot closer than it was first passed into law. On the 'black and white' scale, the pointer has moved down into a 'less black' area - so things are starting to become grey. Therein lies a problem - where do the 'grey areas' change from 'black' to 'white'?
In the legislation, there is no provision for defining this. It is purely a subjective assessment that can, and will, drift in line with the current societal norms.
However, you may shout from the rooftops that it will never get that bad - and I might be inclined to agree with you - but will I hazard a guess that our reasoning will differ.
(While I may not be accurate in assigning this point of view to you, Golden, I present it from the impression I have gleaned from what you have said. If I am patently wrong, I apologise, but I present the point as one approach...)
You may passionately declare "They're the good guys - they wouldn't do anything nasty. They will just be looking out for us and whatever they target will be deserving of that attention." My response to that would be this: If this is the approach the populace takes - blind faith - then there will be every reason for those with the power, to exercise it as they see fit. Can you imagine what politicians would do if they knew they could get away with anything? It's bad enough as it is now.
My reasoning why things will never get that bad is that there will be people watching - such as it demonstrated here in this thread - and that the powers that be will know this. They will need to be very sure of their actions because if they try and 'push the envelope' beyond what the population considers reasonable, there will be increased pressure to curb or limit these powers which could make it harder to deal with real problems in the future. The pressure will be political - since its the politicians who drive the legislative processes and the electors who drive the politicians.
As I said before, I have every respect for law enforcement, but vigilance will serve society whereas blind faith can imprison it.
