I read the news paper the other day (I scold myself again for wasting the money….) and found the below article hidden in subtext after the winner of a game show and the elections and ramblings of overseas political incomprehensibility.
The article just reminded me of a conversation I had in the mid 1990’s…..
As a bit of history first. I graduated as a Police Officer in 1980.
Drink driving in those days meant that you were not allowed to drive drunk. We often pulled over a driver a bit after midnight (the pubs ALL closed at midnight) and had the following conversation:
“Hey mate where you off too?”
“Just going home”
“Where you coming from”
“Just been down the pub.”
“You had a few?”
“Yeah but I’m okay…”
“Okay mate take it easy, be careful.”
“Yes sir, can I go?”
“Yes mate…..”
Then a short time later ‘The Limit’ came in at 0.08 which nobody really knew what it meant. It became illegal to drive above the limit of alcohol in the blood, whatever that meant. But, the Government put advertisements on TV and it was a catchy phrase, and maybe it was a song something like “Four Men and Women Two” which turned out to be pretty wrong! Who knew?
Drivers then had to ‘blow in the bag’ (some of you will recognise the ‘altho-test’ in the above photo – no fancy electronics!!!) to show us they we sober. Sorry not sober, or too drunk to drive, but, ‘under the limit’ of 0.08. By the way it was still illegal to drive drunk!
Setting up the bag was a nightmare, breaking off the ends of little glass tubes filled with crystals, then connecting it to a bag and a mouth piece (with bare hands…). Then going through the legal jargon of saying blow until the bag is full. Then if the crystals changed colour above a little red line it meant you went over the limit, which was bad.
But, we didn’t do too many, as you had to be observed committing a traffic offence or driving in a manner which indicated your driving was impaired. This had to be see before the Police could pull you over a get you to ‘blow in the bag.’
Okay, later they brought in electronic breatherlsisers and legislation that gave Police the power to take your car and cancel your license on the side of the road. But, before that they did something else which, brings me to the point of my ramblings.
They (the infamous ‘they’, normally meaning the government or big business…) brought in:
RANDOM BREATH TESTING!!!!!!!
Wow! Randomly Policing the public just in case they were committing a crime with no indication that they have ever committed a crime, might commit a crime, let alone are committing a crime…. it’s all ‘random’ ….. dare I say ‘just in’ case Policing?
It was strange, as this is the main point of my story. When they brought in this ‘random policing model’ I was a Detective and studying to be qualified as a Sergeant. It was an era of enlightenment when Policing studies were aligned with TAFE and University Courses and qualifications actually meant something.
I went along to TAFE as a 30’s something fifteen year ‘veteran’ in the Police with the other students in the class being adolescents and kids all around 18 years old, which was a lot of fun. It came to a bit of a head in class discussions when we were doing something relating to random breath testing and drink driving.
I saw an opportunity to cause trouble, never an opportunity I would let pass by and spoke against the principle of random breath testing. Remember everyone was there just to get qualified in something and each 45 minute lecture in Adelaide TAFE was attended just so you could get a basic pass and get on with life.
I realised something while being the ‘devils advocate’ in this lecture it all came down to one question. I asked that question….
DO YOU BELIEVE IN RANDON BREATH TESTING …. AND IF SO, WHY?
Oh yeah, they were all for it. IT Stopped dangerous people on the road, saved lives, lowered traffic injuries and deaths. Unfortunately, experience tells us other than complete tyranny, enforcement has never actually ‘stopped’ a destructive community behaviour or crime problem. I love the story of alcohol prohibition in the US, it worked so well, it created “Organised Crime!”
Now, I want you to imagine you are at home one night with your family just finished tea and taking your positions to watch “Farmer Wants a Wife” or some other inane TV show designed to make you dumber. There is a knock on the door: the family all look at each other in surprise “Oh, I wonder who that could be?” We hear Dad open the front door and a measured and authoritarian voice is heard to say:
“Good evening sir”
Dad: “Hello Officer how can I help you?”
“We are conducting random house searches for drugs and stolen proptery… blah, blah, blah…
Okay, you say not probable, but, I say inevitable…?
But, can you not apply your reasoning for agreeing with random breath testing to this ‘random house searching’. Are they not justified on the same principles?
By allowing the Police to randomly ‘police’ us we are handing over our ‘right’ to go about our business peacefully without interference from an over controlling or oppressive regime. We are handing over all our rights to not be considered ‘possibly guilty until proven innocent.’ That is really the crux of the matter. Your presumption of innocence is surrendered by any form of random policing.
Oh, I hear you say again but that will never happen in Australia!
Well, you mean like, when you are randomly stopped in your car, and the Police have the power of ‘judge, jury and executioner’ when they cancel your licence on the spot and impound your car…. but, aren’t you innocent so why the ‘roadside penalty’ when Court, like a real Court, could be months away. Just point out to me in these situations where is your ‘presumption of innocence.’
Well, sorry too late….. ask those in Port Augusta if they enjoyed tyranny. (PS: The statistics they quote in the article below don’t mean anything?)
