Written for the New Matilda website forum

Hi, this is a brief-ish essay with a poem and a question around policing and the anti-terrorist laws. In part it poses another question which is a direct legal askance of other persons utilising these forums. Can any of the material in this post be regarded as seditious? Because if it can be, then it is also evidence, within my real life experience, of the total failure of the criminal justice system in Australia, and also, potentially of family law. (Or was that last sentence the only which might be able to be misconstrued as though seditious?)

Thinking about the election yesterday, a serious issue arose in my mind in respect of policing. I was speaking with a German man who is married to an Indigenous South American woman, during the launch of the Socialist Alliance election campaign here in Brisbane. He mentioned the general depravity of the situation which policing has fallen to in the former Soviet Union political block. I myself remembered having been travelling in Hungary during 1989 and observing the soldiers seeming very officious, even when extremely young, and then being in Hungary again in 1991 and witnessing the soldiers looking a bit lost in respect of what their function is.

What the conversation stimulated in my own mind is the extent to which the police who are newly empowered within the anti-terrorist legislation, and whom I have had occasion to met in the course of their work policing me, often seem similarly lost in respect of what their real task is. Let me assert here that while I am perfectly innocent, I know that the police are only doing their job by having me under surveillance, which has been the case since I was a teenager, and which I have long before now had distinct empirical evidence of. In fact their protection, of my immediate physical presence, at times is very much appreciated.

A fact occurred to me during conversation. One that I believe we must all take very seriously in respect of how we all, as a nation, hold the new government, (whoever they will be), accountable. It is around the functional reality of policing. Consider these facts: there are criminals in organised crime who have noticed holes in legislation; they notice such holes usually in respect of the application of legislation to persons more soundly innocent than themselves, but then try to use that knowledge to their own criminal advantage; in international examples of where policing has assumed to need to use criminal methodology also, the criminals have only become then enabled to take even further advantage. Criminals always tend to use any flaw in the legislative system to enable criminality, by asserting that if the legislative system itself is flawed, then there is no need to abide by it in any portion of the law. So they try to source small examples of minor police errors in which to stabilise the false impression of a cause for their own criminal behaviour.

The problem seems to arise among the police when individual policemen assert that if a criminal can take that advantage then so can they. I believe that it is to our advantage to observe how the British public have a stronger history than we here in Australia, at holding the police accountable to the laws they themselves enforce. It is a history born in the living memory of world war two, and in coalitions of opposition to fascist influences on the streets. I have been at many left wing organised political rallies in the UK, at which: there are people marching in formation within a police cordon who are being directed by rally organisers using megaphones; outside the cordon there are further police patrolling; outside the uniform policing area there are more rally organisers attending to recording every scrap of evidence of every move the police make, including the policeman's individual numbers; outside of the region of the street in which all those persons are walking there can often also be organised far right wing criminals who make overt threats of violence; outside that there are left wing organised skin heads who want the fight so will draw the right wing violence away from the marching public; outside that, I can only assume that there must be more uniform policing and also undercover policing, which I must also assume is happening within the march itself. The point is that it is all far more assiduously organised, and that the level of organisation is born in mass public efforts to prevent violence from the police.

I am not one to really like much being out and about in political rallies, but will if I am angry enough. Yet, just like the police, and many Australians, I far prefer the picnic in the park sort, to the policeman's knee in the throat sort. This is a question for all of us. Will we Australians be better able to effect that we are more in the region of picnics in the park to make our protests at, if we adopt aligning ourselves with the British public in respect of policing the police. I'll tag in my poem here, that I wrote this morning on the way into the library on the train, but after that will provide a bit more tangible data.


Sedition's Bitch

If it is true
What legislators did do
Was obtain from police
Complaints of their fleece
And that there are criminals who
Disguise their planning
Behind certain conviction
That the legislative system
Was already inherently
Adjusted to the corrupted
So perhaps complained the police
In which the legislators who to
Seemed to lack faith
In their own worth and stake
So rather than try to improve
Upon their legislation
They enabled that police too
Can decide to cover up
Non-adherence to
But if it is true
That the legislators who
Such laws did do
Imagined to
Vindicate
their decisions in supposition
Of a gate
Of evidence of innocence their fate
Simply because
It seems that it was
Criminals who were tempting them to
Well then
The legislators are proven to
Have invited in you-know-who
That the ministries of governance by real justice
Will that a Harry Potter be who rescues us
Australians who knew
Every legal representative's job is
To make interpretative analysis
Of the legislative word pinch
In which
There need be no fear of
Being accused
Of disagreeing with
Another person's
Interpretative analysis
For sedition's bitch is
The interpretive wish
Of every word pinched
But will they this too
For if it is true
Need I even have covered
My own hate unto


I am not actually a seditious bitch because I am a law abiding person who likes law abiding governance. I even have a perfect recall memory of any and every instance in which I possibly could have been in error. A memory capacity which places me in an advantageous position around those whose tendency it is to make false accusations. Our society is full of absurd allegations, even to the ridiculous extent that there are those who had accused me of only what they knew they were imposing upon me. I reckon its about time, especially during an election campaign, for us all to really question how far into preponderance of what might be the fault of any other person, it is possible to let this society go.

I want to here detail a few hard facts and let you yourself draw your own conclusions. But the hard facts which I myself have clear evidence of, might not always seem believable to everybody who has not witnessed such evidence. Furthermore, my only authority in which to state the facts of my own knowledge, is that I know myself well, so am not able to fall into being mistaken between my own imagination and the real world. That fact of sustaining self knowledge, only as every religious teaching instructs in the command to “know thyself”, is seldom believed in as possible to attain in today's world. Yet if there is nobody who really can know who they are in entirety, then justice is just not possible; since if we confuse our own belief with the beliefs being imposed upon us externally, how can we know our own innocence from guilt, and then how could we know the innocence of other persons from their guilt. Self knowledge, is, of course, the key to managing to dwell in a society in which we are exposed to criminality, without ourselves falling afoul of crime.

There are two distinct social patterns which I have witnessed, and have experienced also being informed of other persons witness of.

The first is a pattern in which there are influences in organised crime which work against the identification of who is guilty of acts of sexual misconduct, and especially any actual child abuse. We all are being taught to believe something different, by the rumours about how much abused a 'rock spider' is in prison. Yet it also is within my knowledge that many of the men in the prison who are in that social status, were the men who were refusing to engage in the systems of affirming the social structures within prisons. While those who in truth believe of themselves that they are guilty of harming children, have been enabled in the prison system to dislodge that identification from their own social status. The methods used to assert various identifications are never willing and are always through rape, by sodomy.

The system by which prisoners are allowed to regulate various social statuses in prison, through illegal acts, is thus what dominates the lives of all persons in society outside of prison whom come within the influence of organised crime. That includes every person, including many children, whom buy illicit drugs. The socialising necessary for illicit drugs sales is my own contact with such behavioural patterns and the system of being socialised into such. Even though I have only ever bought marijuhana on a handful of occasions, it proves impossible not to be influenced by all the social insistences of the communities bound together only through criminality; and that is even in having had to identify to police who sold the drugs etc. The situation is far worse here in Queensland than in the ACT, where there is decriminalisation of having a few home grown weeds.

Within that same system of the socialisation patterns being enabled in prisons, what is evidenced to be occurring, (this is data I was given from a professional in an industry that is not likely to want to put this data out since it could draw criminal attention to their work), is that any person whom identifies another persons criminal conduct against children, especially any actual acts of rape, becomes themselves identified by organised crime to target and victimise by rape. There is a false assumption being put in place among criminals about what is causing acts of sexual violence. The assumption is based in a belief that if we accuse a weak minded person of a crime without having evidence, then we might by accident become ourselves causal to having encouraged them into later committing the crime. That is the principal in which we are all innocent until prove guilty, that all of legislative justice is based within. However, there are criminals who mistake the meaning of that principal, and assert that even when there is evidence, if an innocent person can identify the crime, then that innocent person was forcing the criminal into it. It is because the pathology of criminality is around false impressions of cause and effect, and it can be found that many criminals imagine to be able to cause the past in the present, or that the future is the cause of the present. It is an extremely dangerous pathology, and is why we have a criminal justice system, which legislation is intended always to serve. In prisons, by acts of sodomy, there are criminals attempting to impose that pathology upon other prisoners who did not already have it. My knowledge of that pathology, is from those men among the Aboriginal community who are more strongly culturally enabled not to fall into such delusions, than are many of the other men in the prison system.

OK, now that I have provided some detail around the criminal social pattern, the second portion of my hard factual data, is around policing.

There happen to be instances in which police have mistaken identities, and have victimised one person, by illegal method, when they intended to victimise another person. There is the famous case in Canberra of the individual who became mentally ill from years upon years of attempting to legally assert through the courts that the police had wronged him by bashing him in assuming he was other person. But the police tend not to want anybody to realise that they might from time to time have utilised illicit method. So they then tend to assert that the evidence of any person whom has evidence against the police, might not be able to be corroborated, and so thus is already proven to be only insanity. The case in Canberra became famous only after many years when the individual who was bashed, had already become under a clinical definition of insanity, and was charged with the attempted murder of the ACT chief of police. I want to make no comment about what he did or did not do, except to assert that I have real cause to believe that in the first instance it was real that he was bashed by police, who had assumed he was another person. Apparently the police were assuming that he should not be able to cause a conviction of any of their members, because he had in fact been smoking cannabis with a more serious criminal offender.

If we as a society let that sort of policing occur, then is it OK for a single mother who very occasionally socially smoked an illicit drug only while her children were not in her care, to be later charged as though guilty of child abuse? The police seem to believe that such is not tolerable in my case, yet are nevertheless acquiescing to my former partner's assertions that I have long already been so damn crazy that it could just happen by accident that I rape one of my sons if they are returned to me. He, and his present partner, whom are those persons through whom I ever came into contact with the criminal world, have been feeling rather guilty for some years about having once exposed my eldest son to an active paedophile. My son ran away and managed to tell me about the incident, which I then immediately reported to all the proper authorities. It was many years later that he and his two younger brothers went have a holiday with their father and his now present partner, (formerly a long term mistress), and their father refused to return them into my custody, even though I had a court order identifying myself as the residential custodial parent. I called the police. The police believed the children's father's assertion that I might just forget myself and rape one of my sons. That happened while we were waiting for a fax from a psychiatrist, which arrived immediately after the decisions not to return my children into my care was made by police. The fax says that no psychiatrist had any reason to have any concern that I might not be a fit parent.

The reason that I had been under the supervision of psychiatrists, was that I had been raped by a man whom had been for a long time in prison. That man was a specialist at enacting sodomy through a process which imposes an enforced sense of culpability for crimes which are not your own. He was engaging in such acts so as to obtain drugs from a source which also supposedly guaranteed a certain level of police protection. The context I met him in was at the Aboriginal tent embassy. Fortunately, there are many other Aboriginal men who have been in prison, who have been extremely well minded towards me, and in fact I have been in a series of situations in which such men have provided to me real protection from any body sodomising me. It happened in that instance that the criminal was not able to see the process through into that final act. However subsequently I was framed up to carry an identity within the Aboriginal community as a racist and a paedophile, in which my children's father assumed the advantage. It was a serious error on the part of the Aboriginal persons who victimised me, even if their process had not been criminal. Because they had been assuming to cause that white persons take the blame for the stolen generations by pursuing causing that white children are removed from their mothers. That was only a minority of persons who so assumed, and a minority who have been significantly brutally raped and abused in the prisons. Part of why it is a very serious error, is because I am in fact myself identified among many portions of the Aboriginal community, to be of remote indigenous ancestry, and to be living within Aboriginal culture and belief. My children's father is Irish. The action taken against me at the tent embassy was motivated by drug addictions. I have fully informed every appropriate Aboriginal context I could manage to communicate with, of those events, well before making this knowledge open in the white Australian mainstream, and it is really under considerable duress in respect of my children's immediate welfare with their father, that I am wanting now to make this story public.

That last paragraph is necessary in this context however, mainly to orient you all into realising that the social conditions I am writing about are somewhat inescapably real. What I am trying to orient your mind, is being able to believe in two different unlawful practises, which are commonly known about among most Australians whom have any contact with the criminal world. Most folk who are in contact with the criminal world are not actual criminals. We might be only under pressure to use an illicit drug socially on rare occasions, or have bought stuff which fell off the back of a truck, or even only have traffic offences and be unable to pay immediately, but such things can tend to bring us within the closer attention of the criminal world. The fact is that most crimes being committed are not committed against the rich, who can afford all the cautions and safeguards that society offers, but are committed against the poor. When we, who are living below the poverty line, are not being lawfully regulated by policing, but are having criminals attempting to regulate our lives, we become sort of vulnerable to being assumed to be the crooks. That vulnerability is being taken advantage of by organised crime. I will assert very definiatively, that there are far right wing elements among organised crime, who have attempted to use their witness of my story as though it is their evidence against Aboriginal Australia; and that I am not, and have never been, complicit with such assertions.

I guess that perhaps I ought to thank my father since his former rank within the department of foreign affairs has ensured that the police need to hold me within the regard of a person whose presence in the world can not just disappear without being noticed by somebody who will expect that the law needs to be adhered to, and who has the money to ensure that, but I can't help wonder what sort of pressure he and my mother might have been under in respect of how the family court case is hindering me from the living where I want to live and engaging in the work I want to work at, and why my parents, who used to fear my children's father's alcoholism, now fear mainly just that I might have run off out into the desert with a black man and my sons in tow. But even in the world view of my parents belief, it is truly not right for myself and my children to have been so far socially condemned only because we were invited to camp at the tent embassy when the camp site we were staying at was becoming full with the Summer Nationals crowds.

All in all, the most dangerous part of the picture I am painting, is that when a person has any real evidence of the police being in error, they then come under a large degree of attention from criminals who want to take advantage of that knowledge. At first, the only evidence I had, (apart from having been trampled a bit at rallies back in 1988), was the belief among drug buyers at the tent embassy that their seller was providing a safeguard that police would not try to close the tent embassy while there was drug use there. I asserted that the residents were wronging the whole population of Aboriginal Australia by buying into such a corrupted idea, since they also stood there everyday, making claims to the tourists for money, to be representing every Aboriginal Australian. That made me very unpopular, and brought the attention of the drug sellers upon me, which might be what stimulated an enquiry by residents at the tent embassy then into my past. They were looking for past affiliations I might have had with criminals, in which to try to purchase that the drug sellers set me up as who was in the wrong in the situation. Sure enough within a few months I happened to bump into an old school acquaintance, whose social set is better known today by my children's father, and who is a heroin dealer. It was a few months later that my children were very suddenly, and unexpectedly, removed from my custody. That was four years and three months ago, and the first trial date in the case is set for January 2008. There are already files with the Commonwealth and State Ombudsmen about the case, and the lawyer appointed here in Queensland, by my original lawyer in NSW, is no longer registered in the state of Queensland. The legal aid funding was not supplied for a retrospective case, despite the fact of my children's father having made a sudden allegation that my children might have been already sexually abused by me, and there has been no investigation of his statements of such, as the Family Law Act dictates need be. (That is the Family Law Act as it read in 2003 when the case was first filed.) What seems to be manifesting in police responses to me, is that it is asserted that I am insane only in my behaviour which is aligned with attempts to fight and win the family court case. If the case were to progress through the courts with real thorough legal representation, I will be amply proven not be any risk to any child, but while the case is not progressing, there is open speculation about me among criminals and police alike. Yet in each step of the progression of the case so far, my evidence is being ignored by assertions about me being insane. (Its obvious isn't it, just by reading this, that I could not be anything other than insane what with the things I report to have first hand witness of . . . . . . in which I must wonder how many Australians are being silenced, since I know that my own experiences are all totally in the margins of the criminal and drug using world.)

I will not make any assertions about why these things have happened to me, except to say that my own use of marijuhana was never any danger to my children, and neither have I ever encountered the worst forms of mental illness which can happen when such drug use is combined with certain fixed beliefs, but have rather taken my own marijuhana use fully into my own account as my own criminal action.

What I will however provide in further detail, is that the bloke who had raped me at the tent embassy was not the first such attempt, and that after arriving here in Queensland, and after the preliminary hearings of the court case failed to provide actual evidence to back up the policing decision, twice more I have been raped by men who were attempting to force me to incriminate myself. In fact there were many other instances in which I had been getting followed and was afraid, but an Aboriginal man came to my rescue by fabricating that he had sodomised me. Of the two examples in which I really was raped here in Queensland, the first was reported to the Queensland police, and had been done by a bloke from England, who told me he used to ride a Norton motorbike, his father was in the Plymouth Brethren, and I happened to notice that he was under guard of Japanese organised crime. In the example of many women who identify who actual paedophiles are, but who can not cause a conviction since young children's evidence is not able to be taken in they courts unless it is clinical, many have been raped within very ritualised contexts, which are known and documented in the USA, as methodology of causing mental illness.

So my question here then, is how far as a Nation, and as a Human society, are we all willing to let the police take the law into their own hands, or let the self regulation patterns in the criminal world continue to spill out in the the world in which we are all responsible for child protection.

The poem possibly poses the more complex set of ideas about how the anti-terrorist legislation might interact with the immediate conditions of my life and that of many other women. I am not the only one in this predicament, but since having become in this predicament have met a number of other women in very similar situations. Many of whom are either black, (including many non-Aboriginal) or have been in relationships with black men. I recently noted a comment in a public context that the Australian Governments list of which Muslim organisations are terrorists, includes many left wing organisations not included in the similar list kept by the USA, but that the USA keep on their list groups of the far right wing among Muslims, which the Australian government is not listing as terrorist organisations. Might I perhaps suggest that the real terrorists here in Australia are those who assume to be able to get away with criminal acts only because they happen to know about the minority of incidents in which the legislative justice system is failing. Was that failure more widespread already, than many recognised, in respect of the failure provide adequate legal representation? Surely the new anti-terrorist laws can not be effectively policed if there is not an equivalent increase in the level of legal aid provision in Australia. There are many other significant conclusions which might be drawn from all the details I have put together here, but I simply can not afford to within what is already my experiential witness.

Thanks for reading this