The Politicisation of the Police and the Policification of Politics. (A Queenslandish perspective.)
In the light of the incarceration of Dr. Haneef there are many commentators lamenting the end of some of the basic principles of our legal system such as the presumption of innocence and the separation of powers. I write the following from within the ranks of this commentariate.
In Queensland however there is another refraction of the legal system unfolding as I write, with the Qld. Police Union providing the media with information about last nights killing of a police officer in Brisbane, outside the framework of the police media unit and before there has been any investigation into the incident. “THE man alleged to have shot dead a Brisbane police officer later shot himself in the head, Queensland’s police union said this afternoon.”
From the Courier Mail
I am surprised and delighted that so many Australian lawyers are speaking out about the federal government’s intervention into Dr. Haneef’s situation and sticking up for his legal team. I have often been cynical about lawyers because of their complicity in a legal system which seems dysfunctional to me. However whatever the illusions of the law are, there now seems to be many legal practitioners who hold firm to the letter and spirit of the law and have not remained silent in the face of the government’s undoing of their professional sacred cows.
In particular I heap praise upon Dr. Haneef’s barrister, Steven Keim who has chosen to provide the media with the transcript of one of his client’s police interviews and perhaps more praiseworthy he has not only admitted to this but has stood up to the federal government, demanding that his actions were appropriate given the federal police and the immigration department releasing unfounded, circumstantial and it would seem exaggerated information to the media about his client. Keim argues that his action is a direct response to the federal police and federal government’s politicisation and sensationalisation of his client’s incarceration.
My earlier post “Will Australia invade Poland before the federal election?” looks at two recent cases of the federal government intervening in and challenging decisions made by courts; Dr. Haneef and the Pine Gap peace protesters. Yesterday the federal government has similarly announced it will be appealing against the decision of a Melbourne court to grant bail to two men accused of supporting Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers. There is indeed a pattern forming.
Well, so far my comments have not strayed beyond what many are saying regarding breaches of separation of powers and the politicisation of Dr. Haneef. However now I would like to connect this dangerous development in our political/legal system with another that is unfolding as we speak in Queensland with the Queensland Police Union’s domination of information (and perspective) following the murder of an officer in Brisbane last night. Normally I would not comment on the Police Union taking a lead role during the death of one of their members, but these are no ordinary times.
The death of Mulrunji Doomadgee on the floor of the Palm Island watch house and the subsequent political furore in Queensland, Australia and indeed around the world leading up to the Charging of Snr. Sgt. Chris Hurley for manslaughter of Mulrunji has done two things to the Queensland police force. Firstly it has been a disaster for the force’s public relations and secondly it has concretised the police force in their support of their union as it took a lead role in criticising the Qld. Coroner’s report into Mulrunji’s death and the Queensland government, especially in the media which even lead to a union official, a serving officer being charged with contempt of court for his media criticism. Despite Hurley being found not guilty the police still have a serious public relations problem which the police union has been addressing with an aggressive two pronged media campaign. One prong is for an increase in Qld. Police wages to equal police salaries in other states. (A demand which I support). But the other prong of the union’s campaign has been a simple public relations campaign seeking to solicit the emotional support from the people of Queensland, or at least those who they think matter. This Youtube video produced by the police union is an ad that has also appearing on television in Queensland.
Because all of this is the context of last nights killing of an officer it is most dangerous that the police union is handling the media on this issue including providing police details of what happened. The police force have a media unit whose purpose, like the force in general, is to serve the people of Queensland and it works within a command and accountability structure. The police union’s purpose is to serve the interest of it’s members, is elected by its members and has no accountability structure, as such it is an inappropriate agency to be speaking on behalf of the police to the media about operational, not industrial issues.
The Federal police’s involvement in the media and the Queensland police Union’s media activities place police officers above and outside of the authority and protocols of the court and justice system. What if Haneef is innocent? In light of a highly politicised, prejudiced and secret agenda of the Federal police, how will we ever know if he is innocent? What if the policeman last night was killed in self defense? I am not at all saying that he was, What if police procedure was not followed and someone ordered the officer into danger? what happened to the gunman? but how would we know while the police themselves control both the investigation into the matter and the union, representing the officers involved, is feeding information to the media.
The court system and the subjugation of its officers including police and lawyers to protocols is the traditional way to determine a persons guilt or innocence of unlawful behavior. However today it seems that governments and the police are more than prepared to abandon the democratic tradition, it seems for purely political purposes - in the federal government’s case to build an election platform and in the case of the Qld police to redeem their sullied reputation in the community.
Stories the server thinks are related:
Posted: by John July 19th, 2007 under Queensland, Democracy, Civil Liberties.
Comments: 6
Comments
Comment from Dave Bath
Time: July 19, 2007, 9:52 pm
Here are the three things I’ve heard the Federal Opposition say in defence of our notions of the way the justice system and separation of powers was supposed to work:
1.
2.
3.
That’s right. Nothing.
(Apologies to The Economist who used the same sarcastic construct)
Comment from philiptravers
Time: July 19, 2007, 11:16 pm
There are some characterisations of the Federal Police here,they may not accept,although I am not backward in that either.I do so,characterise knowing individuals do not have to accept my characterisations,and probably dont either.Their is fair truth in remarks about the Queensland Police,but, only in so far that this shooting is obviously still within the short-term memory,and who needs having workmates killed on the job.The problem that Police have as a function of government and weapon carrying is the rapid closing of the ranks,that ends up being pretty cold to outsiders.I think ,if you believe in justice and liberty,that may also mean to be just a little extra patient with the falterings of Police when there is something wounded about them.To quick to see the faults,may lead to further unwillingness to listen to critics..who criticise more about protocols of responses mainly,rather than the harsh and personal.There is obviously some personal problem for Police generally as very visible,authority figures…even the Queensland Police are fairly astute at times..we should try it also as non-uniformed.
Comment from John
Time: July 19, 2007, 11:39 pm
Hi Philip,
Yes it is a touchy time for the police and they should be left to grieve their comrade in private. But the police were particularly touchy allready because of Mulrunji’s death and its aftermath including the role the police union played. So in a time of such intense touchiness and a current union P.R. campaign it is the very reason why it is so dangerous for the police union to be making announcements about any police matter, especially the cause of the civilian’s gunshot wounds, a story that does not seem to fit with other witnesses who heard 6 or 7 gun shots. It is improper to make such statements before an investigation and then it should be announced by the commissioner or the media unit - not the union.
It is true the police have great needs but this should not justify stepping over professional boundaries, they are trained in police protocal and grief management and should stick within the guidelines.
The death of an officer is not a previously unforseen occurence.
Comment from al loomis
Time: July 20, 2007, 11:58 am
these discussions founder on some inconvenient facts of oz life:
the federal constitution bears little resemblance to reality.
consequently, assertions about what oz society is or should be frequently have no legitimacy.
in common with it’s british progenitor and model, oz is a parliamentary society that likes to pretend it is a democracy. indeed, there is commonly a psychotic insistence this is so, in spite of daily evidence to the contrary. the evidence is both formal in law, and seamlessly present in custom.
these reminders of the supremacy of parliament over all other elements of society are not called oligarchy, they are transmuted into evidence of ‘democracy’.
this total identification with an upper class of ‘real people’ is characteristic of football fans, lackeys, and old house slaves. not only is oz not a democracy, it can not be, for lack of citizen quality people.
Comment from amphibious
Time: July 20, 2007, 12:45 pm
Loomis - a bit … harsh but .. you’re not wrong. Big Mal Fraser stole Ayn Rand’s line of “no free lunch” or was it”Life wasn’t (by WHOM?!?) to be easy..”.
However, the one for which I’ll remember him during the 1975 campaign was “Australians wan’t to return the time when they turned to the back of the paper first”.
Modern version was the Rodent in 1996 (though it was non-core, obviously) promising that we’d “be relaxed & comfortable.” No scare mongering like “Alert not Alarmed”
Comment from Kieran
Time: July 20, 2007, 9:11 pm
Because all of this is the context of last nights killing of an officer it is most dangerous that the police union is handling the media on this issue including providing police details of what happened.
I agree this is far from desirable. The police union is NOT the police force. The force exists to “serve and protect”, the union exists to serve it’s members.
The two roles are distinct, and when we confuse the voice of the police union for the voice of the police force, we’re heading down a dangerous path.
Write a comment