λ Tony’s blog λ

Took me a while to recall the right keywords to come up with this excellent interview between a representative of the Canadian Government and Ezra Levant.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22427799-5007200,00.html

PHILIP Lamattina’s spectacular effort at Willowbank near Ipswich on Saturday night has already assumed legend status among Australia’s drag racing fraternity.

He miraculously escaped unscathed from the 500km/h smash that destroyed his $250,000 Top Fuel dragster.

The publisher(s) of this story oughtta be ashamed of themselves. Everyone knows (note: I am exempt from accusations of argumentum ad populum fallacies because I am (and circular reasoning too, got it?)) that SPEED KILLS! Here these journalists are implicitly refuting the known established perversion… er… correction, of the laws of Physics and our understanding of space and time! This is nothing short of failure of reason and I now expect deaths on our roads to increase substantially. All because of some irresponsible journalist(s)!

Actually, I take it back. You see, it was a miracle. Yes, notice the use of the adverb, ‘miraculous’ in the second paragraph. Instead of contradicting our government’s established scientimplistic (yes, I made that up :)) understanding, the article exonerates itself by attributing the whole affair to a miracle. This is permitted under the laws of illogic, which any person is free to invent for themselves, right? Of course.

So you see, that makes sense now. Phew!

Dear Prime Minister John Howard of Australia,
Many of my readers may not be aware that all people over the age of 18 are required to vote in elections by law in Australia. The exceptions are (of course) the organisations with an artificially heightened religious status such as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I was de-listed to vote years ago and when I contacted your Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to apply for conscientious objector status, I was told I needed to belong to a religious cult in order to be eligible and that I am not permitted to think for myself under Australian law. I resented this implication and I have since not ever enrolled to vote. Nevertheless, the AEC operator told me that to be a conscientious objector and at the same time, exist independently of a religious cult/organisation, that I simply should not enrol to vote — to break the law — go figure? I hadn’t voted before this time, since I had always submitted an empty voting ballot form. I won’t bore you with my somewhat complicated reasons why (relative to your comprehension skills that is).

But this is not the reason I write to you. No, it is the very rare victory that Science has had recently. I am writing to you to make a deal. I will forgive the implication that Australians are not permitted to think for themselves if you follow the lead of the UK government and even more, I will submit one vote for you! I will even forgive you for taking away my firearm licence those many years ago just because some psycho 2500km away went berzerk with a semi-automatic rifle. I know you do not possess critical thinking skills Mr. Howard, and neither do your nemeses, but I will forgive you for that.

You see, the UK government have recently announced that Intelligent Design has no part in a school that teaches Science; how great is that for our society!? This announcement has tipped me over the edge and given me some hope — I will do just about anything to have the same for our vulnerable Australian children. Please Mr. Howard!

So, I implore you, please follow suit, for the sake of my children and their well-being if anything. But of course, I know all you care about at the end of the day is my vote and believe me, you will get it! I will even vote for a government; that’s how desperate I am to save my children from the Monotheistic attacks that are conducted so readily and openly in so many civilisations today, including the one that you currently govern.

So, how about it?

On 28 April 2006, I was charged by a police officer for obstruction under Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Section 444 (since amended to Section 790). The police officer alleged at the time that my holding of a sign that reads ‘Police Speed Trap Ahead 50′ — with emphasis on the 50 indicating the speed limit in that area — constituted an offence, obstruction.

I subsequently entered a plea of not guilty (after one adjournment) and made several attempts to obtain a Brief of Evidence from the police prosecution. Their incompetence would normally astound me, but these days I just roll my eyes — in fact, a demonstration of competence itself would invoke surprise (know of one?). Of course, no brief was available, for days, then weeks, then months and in the meantime, I had spent countless hours on putting together a defence.

Finally, the day before the trial, still without a brief (roll eyes now), the police prosecutor rings me and attempts to negotiate — in the usual friendly/manipulative manner as expected. After the usual banter (trying to obtain information from me), I am offered a ‘guilty plea for no conviction’ deal, which I immediately decline and hang up the phone with, ’see ya tomorrow mate’. I then travelled to the police station to request a brief of evidence, knowing I wouldn’t receive one, but adding to my record of attempts to obtain it, that I would be presenting to the magistrate the following day. A couple of hours later, I receive another phone call to be notified that the charge has been dropped.

This occurred for two reasons.

1. The police prosecution was too incompetent to get their act together to pursue the charge
2. But most importantly, the police do not want to set a legal (lawful) precedent for this behaviour

The police prosecution clearly believed that there was a strong possibility that my not guilty plea would pay off. If it were successful, a subsequent appearance on television (see the first one below) would have propagated the legality of this activity among the public and the police definitely do not want an informed public even if it means that I ‘get off’. Instead, it is best to leave the issue ‘blurred’ and continue pursuing ‘offenders’ such as myself, who otherwise do not know any better and enter a guilty plea on the day in court (I understand that many police officers genuinely believe that they are performing a public duty, but let’s leave that side issue).

Although I am not a lawyer, this activity is not illegal if it is executed correctly. I encourage any member of the public who is concerned about road-safety in Australia to engage in this lawful behaviour, although I do not accept any liability for any adverse consequences that you may encounter, including, among other things, a criminal conviction.

To engage in this behaviour legally in Queensland (other states may be similar), ensure the following:

• stand well away from the police speed trap, a few hundred metres at least
• if approached by anyone, do not offer comment under any circumstances
• if approached by a police officer, he/she may request your name, address and may also request “evidence of the correctness of the stated name and address” (see PPRA2000 Section 40)
• Comply if you are asked for name and address, but under no circumstances should you offer further comment on the matter — police are very well trained at extracting this information to ensure your conviction, so it is up to you exercising discipline to keep yourself safe. This request is almost certainly a demand under PPRA 2000 Section 41 where the police officer “reasonably suspects the person has committed an offence”, even though you probably haven’t. Do not pursue this ambiguity with the police officer at the scene.

What about flashing vehicle headlights? If you flash your headlights to warn other motorists of an impending speed trap, a police officer will almost certainly issue you with an infringement notice of Rule 218 of the Australia Road Rules (Transport Operations Regulation 1999 in Queensland). It is important in this case to fulfill your legal obligations (name, address and produce valid driver’s licence) but offer no other comment — why? Because you may not have committed an offence, that’s why.

Let’s take a look at Rule 218 of the ARR (Part 13 Division 1):

218 Using headlights on high-beam
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not use the vehicle’s headlights on
high-beam, or allow the vehicle’s headlights to be used on
high-beam, if the driver is driving:
(a) less than 200 metres behind a vehicle travelling in the
same direction as the driver; or
(b) less than 200 metres from an oncoming vehicle.
Offence provision.
Note High-beam and oncoming vehicle are defined in the dictionary.
(2) However, if the driver is overtaking a vehicle, the driver may
briefly switch the headlights from low-beam to high-beam
immediately before the driver begins to overtake the vehicle.
Note Low-beam and overtake are defined in the dictionary.
Diagrams follow

Your infringement notice is for part (1) of Section 218, but a police officer almost certainly will not ask you if you used your signals for part (2). Have you ever asked yourself why ADR (Australian Design Rules) compliant vehicles have a high-beam flasher switch? Of course, because it is entirely legal to flash your high-beam headlights under some circumstances.

If you wish to warn opposing traffic of an impending speed trap, ensure that you flash your headlights under legal circumstances — while overtaking a vehicle, briefly from low-beam to high-beam and immediately before overtaking the vehicle. Do not feel tempted to justify this action on the side of the road with a manipulative police officer! Simply enter your not guilty plea in the court and explain to the magistrate that you were acting legally and responsibly under Rule 218 of the ARR.