CHOGM Legal Challenge

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

It seems that our current legal system is not enough to protect CHOGM delegates:

"Police need greater powers of stop and search so that they can head off any potential trouble or danger before we have a serious incident." That's the WA Police Union president Russell Armstrong, reported in The West, "Stop, search law in for CHOGM", 24 Jan 2011.

In the same article, Police Minister Rob Johnson is reported as saying that new legislation will be introduced including "the right to randomly stop and search people in designated security areas". That's the reporters' words, not necessarily the minister's. Shadow police minister Margaret Quirk would support the new laws, "provided they were limited to CHOGM" (reporters' words) and were not more general stop and search laws introduced by stealth.

So what is it about CHOGM that necessitates new laws?

Are all the CHsOG law breakers?

Apparently not. It seems that CHOGM brings lots of protesters and troublemakers to Perth. "There will be lots of protesters and troublemakers that will be coming to Perth to try and create some headaches." That's Armstrong again.

CHOGM logic failure

Down below, I'm going to throw in a simple solution to the CHOGM law enforcement problems. But that was not what set my Bad Logic Alarm clanging...

We have laws which are adequate for public safety. So we are told. So why does CHOGM require more laws? Are existing laws suddenly inadequate?

Government wants "stop and search" laws. They definitely want them during CHOGM. Government wants laws to allow stop and search in designated security areas. What's so important about designated security areas?

Government have backed down on laws which, they claimed, were essential for protecting Australian citizens on Australian city streets. Are visitors in designated security areas -- areas which are already, presumably, very secure -- are these people more important that Australian citizens? Why?

Opposition do not want stop and search laws. They are not necessary -- so they have claimed -- not necessary to protect Australian citizens living their ordinary lives in Australian cities. Now the opposition is willing to allow these laws to be introduced to protect visitors. Visitors who will already be in secure areas.

Is there something about a secure area that makes it, somehow, less secure? Are protesters more violent that the usual drunken brawlers? Do imported protesters carry more weapons than the usual, local gang members? (If so, how did they get those weapons through customs?!)

Are our politicians just playing games?

Here's a good idea... again

I've already solved the CHOGM security problem. As Mark Twain wrote, Put all your eggs in one basket -- then watch that basket... So:

• Hold the CHOGM in WA but not in Perth. Rent a mining camp "motel" for a week. It's already set up for high volume fly-in, fly-out. The accommodation is good (the mining companies have said so). Security will be a breeze...

"Which way to CHOGM?" asks the protester.

"Up the road a thousand k, turn right, follow the gravel another few hundred..."

"Isn't there an airfield? Can we fly in?"

"Yeah, no worries, a flight every other day. Though I hear that all the seats are booked already by reporters..."

"Can I charter a flight? It's really important that I create some headaches at CHOGM."

"Plenty of planes available for charter. The real problem will be the last couple hundred k from the airport to the CHOGM camp... You have packed your own swag, haven't you?"

"What?! Ummm... I reckon I'll go create some headaches for some crowd who meet in better tourist destinations..."

Problem? Solved.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com