Brisbane photographer arrested under special G20 powers

[Roger Hicks]

... as they say 'discretion is the better part of valour' ... so I expect, as you suggest, cowardice is probably a good bit of discretion eh?

PS ... oh, and I have received all three of your qualification criteria over the years

Dear Stewart,

Yes....

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You can surely find no shortage of civil rights abuses from any decade of US history, but there has never been a time in my life when the OFFICIAL position was to condone torture and overturn of habeas corpus. That is new stuff. No longer some fat sheriff in a backwater town presiding over a lynching, but rather the president of the US and its attorney general denying our basic constitutional rights.

Randy

Dear Randy,

Hey! Stop complaining! YOU'RE the one trying to tear down the status quo and to destroy society as we know it, not the torturers and the people who snatch you off the street and hold you indefinitely without trial.

It's just a question of which "status quo" you want to defend.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Scrambler]

Thinking about this further it strikes me that there is something in the British DNA which views the whole matter of carrying and being asked to produce ID as rather alien. Maybe its a hangover from the last war or seeing Casablanca too many times. As regards voter fraud , I can only remember this being suggested once and then only in the last two years. One needs to remember that the UK is very small and doesn`t (at least yet) have the great disparities mentioned in this thread that would make having or indeed not having an ID an issue.

The usual approach to preventing double voting where ID is uncommon is to dip the voters finger in indelible ink. The issue then is people who are ineligible ( usually due to age) voting.

 

[Michael Markey]

I use a postal vote these days so all I have to do is sign the slip..
However ...if you want to go down to the polling station you are sent a card
The details on the card are checked at the polling station ... you are ticked off the corresponding list held by the officials at the station nothing else required.

 

[Linkert]

You do not take sh*t from authorities, you ask them to terminate your life straight away if they're pulling some sh*t like this on you. You explain that its probably a economically sound idea as your gonna be back doing the same thing over and over again.

🙂

 

[tunalegs]

I do find it a little amusing that the majority seem to have a problem with a man not answering the police, but only a few are bothering to question why the police have a problem with the man taking pictures in the first place.

 

[Scrambler]

Australian law has now removed Australia from the Australian migration zone, meaning that you cannot claim refuge in Australia if you are in Australia. Of course, you can't claim refuge in Australia if you are NOT in Australia either.

It was also recently ruled by an Australian court that there are only two ways a non-Australian can arrive in Australia: by air or by boat. A child born IN AUSTRALIA to a couple who had no visa was ruled to have arrived by boat by the irrefutable argument that she had not arrived by air.

So don't go around suggesting that the law in this normally straightforward country currently needs to make sense.

 

[peterm1]

I do find it a little amusing that the majority seem to have a problem with a man not answering the police, but only a few are bothering to question why the police have a problem with the man taking pictures in the first place.

Its the culture here. Normally Australian cops are very laid back and casual appearing in the way they go about their jobs. They tend to be very approachable in the main and even quite friendly whent he situation allows it. Australian citizens tend to be equally so. I have never had problems with police even on the rare occasions I have been stopped by them and asked what I am photographing (e.g. near government buildings). I have explained who I am and what I am doing, they have responded "No worries mate" and we have gone our separate ways. Everyone happy, all cool. everything fixed in a laid back Ozzy way. But it takes two to tango.

With G20 in town officials are nervous. No one wants a riot. (Which will almost certainly happen anyway courtesy of the international professional protesting brigade that follows G20 meetings like $10 hookers follow an army). No one certainly wants a world leader assassinated or a bomb going off killing civilians. At a time when they have been some terrorist scares on top of all this I don't think I really feel the need to question why police are asking someone wandering around randomly taking photos what he is doing it for in these circumstances. It just does not seem unreasonable to me. A few ounces of common sense goes a hell of a long way in defusing situations that never needed to escalate if the guy had cooperated.

 

[tunalegs]

I did not know that it was a common fact that photographers started riots, had bombs disguised as cameras, or assassinated world leaders.

 

[Michael Markey]

Thing is I cannot understand the connection between photography and terrorism.
Has this been established at any time , if so, I`ve never heard it discussed.

If the do rely on photographic material are they incapable of using Google maps street view ?

Sounds to me that its just a case of the police being lazy and going through the motions.
Dangerous for everybody if thats the case.

 

[tunalegs]

There was a lot of such discussion in the years right after 9/11 happened.

I don't think anybody ever was able to prove a connection between things like taking pictures of streets or buildings with any known terrorist act.

We did however find out that police in general just don't want cameras around. Because it looks bad when people have photographic proof of police doing things police should never be doing in the first place.

 

[Michael Markey]

We did however find out that police in general just don't want cameras around. Because it looks bad when people have photographic proof of police doing things police should never be doing in the first place.

That makes more sense .

 

[peterm1]

"We did however find out that police in general just don't want cameras around. Because it looks bad when people have photographic proof of police doing things police should never be doing in the first place."

Have any of you guys ever even been to Australia? Do you really think that cops in Oz do not know that everyone and their dog carries a smart phone with a camera in it? I seriously do not think they are that silly.

Like I said authorities are nervous in and around the exclusion zone for the talks. If they approach someone who turns out to be doing something legal surely the correct response from the member of the public is to respond politely and comply with their requests - common sense should dictate someone with half a brain understanding that there is something big on and cops are worried about everything. But if instead they get aggro I don't blame the police for running them in, just just because they are being a dick. Police in this situation will be in no mood to fritz about with someone who may or may not be doing something that could come back and bite them.

And as to the comment that " I did not know that it was a common fact that photographers started riots, had bombs disguised as cameras, or assassinated world leaders..." For goodness sake wake up. Who is to say a terrorist might not choose to pose as a photographer just to put the police off guard. seems like a possibility to me.

Cops have to be alert to the possibility and check it out. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. suppose they try to check it out and the person refuses to cooperate. How would you respond? well apparently thats what happened here. If they did not do this then I would agree they are being lazy - not for doing it but for not doing it.

 

[tunalegs]

For goodness sake wake up. Who is to say a terrorist might not choose to pose as a photographer just to put the police off guard. seems like a possibility to me.

What can I write but, LMAO.

"I think that man is pretending to photograph flowers to throw us off!"
Officer walks over to man
"What do you think you're doing?"
"Taking pictures of flowers."
"Well since you told me so I think it's safe to assume you're not a terrorist, terrorists would refuse to give a straight answer!"
🙂

 

[RichL]

You can surely find no shortage of civil rights abuses from any decade of US history, but there has never been a time in my life when the OFFICIAL position was to condone torture and overturn of habeas corpus. That is new stuff. No longer some fat sheriff in a backwater town presiding over a lynching, but rather the president of the US and its attorney general denying our basic constitutional rights.

Randy

Try reading "A People's History Of The United States" by Howard Zinn then double check some of his statements. It will be an eye opener.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I did not know that it was a common fact that photographers started riots, had bombs disguised as cameras, or assassinated world leaders.

It may not be a common fact but it's certainly common knowledge unless you've been reading the wrong newspapers and clicking on the wrong websites. EVERY sensible person knows that we must ALWAYS do what every jack-in-office tells us to do, and then lick his boots clean afterwards.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What can I write but, LMAO.

"I think that man is pretending to photograph flowers to throw us off!"
Officer walks over to man
"What do you think you're doing?"
"Taking pictures of flowers."
"Well since you told me so I think it's safe to assume you're not a terrorist, terrorists would refuse to give a straight answer!"
🙂

Love it!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thinking about this further it strikes me that there is something in the British DNA which views the whole matter of carrying and being asked to produce ID as rather alien.

Maybe its a hangover from the last war or seeing Casablanca too many times.

As regards voter fraud , I can only remember this being suggested once and then only in the last two years.

One needs to remember that the UK is very small and doesn`t (at least yet) have the great disparities mentioned in this thread that would make having or indeed not having an ID an issue.

Dear Michael,

So small, in fact, that all 60,000,000 inhabitants know one another by sight and often by first name... Sorry, that one won't wash. Even in my own village of 1000 people, we don't all know one another.

Cheers.

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think you misread some of us. While I admit there is sometimes a valid reason for a Rosa Parks action, I can't argue with every stupid public official I run into, or my life would be ruined.

I could no longer take vacations, buy subway metrocards, or mail anything at the post office. I could not drive or ride my bicycle, or even walk the streets.

And frankly I just don't want my life to be ruled by the realization (or imagination) that most everyone around me is trampling deliberately on my rights. I prefer to believe most are just ignorant, lazy, or just don't give a rat's a** about much of anything.

It is of course a valid discussion, about where to draw the line, when putting up with officialdom's endless crap.

I have risked jail, but most of the time, I see the world for what it is - and act accordingly.

Sure. Life ain't long enough to fight every time. But if we always give in to every jack-in-office, life will soon be a lot shorter for a lot of people.

Also, we don't all have to fight all the time. One or two people, every now and then: that's all it takes in many cases. One person who finally says, "Oh, **** this, I don't need this **** YET AGAIN" and who is widely supported, even by those of us who might not have been brave enough to kick up a fuss ourselves. Rosa Parks, maybe. That's what it takes.

Like you, I've made a lot less fuss than I could have. But I (and I suspect, you) admire those who do stand up for our rights, even petty rights. I sometimes feel guilty that I haven't stood up more often. I can all too easily identify with those who don't, for one reason or another, stand up on any given occasion: been there, failed to do that. But I have nothing but contempt for those who refuse ever to stand up; and worse than contempt for those who are proud of their cowardice.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tunalegs]

And frankly I just don't want my life to be ruled by the realization (or imagination) that most everyone around me is trampling deliberately on my rights. I prefer to believe most are just ignorant, lazy, or just don't give a rat's a** about much of anything.

It is of course a valid discussion, about where to draw the line, when putting up with officialdom's endless crap.

I am speaking, like most of us here, as a spectator to the situation being discussed, and my comments are made in that context.

Were it me being asked by the police I probably would cooperate. But I would still want to know how they think they're being productive questioning people for taking pictures.

As a spectator though, I'm struck that so many seem to fault the man for not cooperating but aren't the least bit curious about why it's suddenly become criminal to take pictures out in broad daylight.

Especially given the uproar that occurs whenever something like a photog being hassled for taking pictures of people on a train in Japan occurs - which at least has some logic, no matter how dubious, behind it.