New South Wales Anti-Terrorism Unit Arrests YouTube Journalist

Moi621 · Jan 4, 2023

kazenatsu said: ↑

I think this is a pretty important developing story in relation to free speech.

At its core, its rather mundane - yet another liberal politician is accused of corruption, over-reacts and sues the person accusing them. Pretty standard fare in today's political climate.

Where the **** hit the fan was this extraordinary arrest of the friendly jordies producer by an anti-terrorist squad. Totally ridiculous and over the top, and you have to wonder, what does this say about the unit - as well as NSW police overall - and how much they are in the pocket of the NSW coalition government?

When politicians in Australia rushed to legislate in the wake of 9/11 and the commencement of the so-called ‘war on terror’, some of us warned that such legislation and the bureaucracy it created would be abused by police. We warned that the sorts of concepts and powers that anti-terror laws spawned would find their way into other areas of social control.

And so it has come to pass with the announcement that a comedian and YouTube creative Kristo Langker has been arrested and charged by New South Wales Police for allegedly stalking and intimidating the combative New South Wales Deputy Premier John Barilaro.

Langker’s alleged ‘crimes’ have their genesis in a video for a YouTube channel called Friendlyjordies, which features comedian Jordan Shanks, and which claimed Mr Barilaro has been indulging in corrupt activities. Mr Barilaro strenuously denies the allegations and is taking legal action against Shanks and Google. Langker and Shanks attended a Macquarie University Politics in the Pub event and asked Barilaro why he was suing. Langker stayed on after Shanks left and according to police, tried to bustle his way through the audience to get closer to Barilaro. Then Langker, on June 4, approached Barilaro as the latter was leaving a funeral and asked him the same question. Langker was arrested and charged that day and is now on bail subject to strict conditions.

One could ask how what appears to be simply a form of protest that is often used by individuals and groups to confront politicians (I remember former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser being verbally abused and jostled at Monash University in 1981) has resulted in charges which carry jail terms. But leaving the questionable use of prosecutorial discretion and police resources aside, what is frightening – and that is the operative word – is that the New South Wales Police deployed what they call the Fixated Persons Investigations Unit (FPIU) to investigate Langker.

Arrest of Kristo Langker represents gross misuse of resources and threat to our freedom of speech - Pearls and Irritations (johnmenadue.com)

Its worth watching the friendlyjordies video series on this, he is quite entertaining. In his videos, friendlyjordies makes a good case that his producer wasn't doing anything a "legitimate" journalist wouldn't be doing in pursuit of the truth. Yes, he may be a ratbag, but really how is it any different to what A current affair spent years doing to anyone they felt like harassing? Didn't see any plain clothed anti-terrorist goons jumping on them. I think there is an important question here about what is a journalist? Are we content with the seemingly orthodox view that only those hired by big news corporations are legit - and the law has carte blanche to harass and bully anyone else who pursues independent journalism? I don't. And by the way, the friendlyjordies producer actually has a press pass to the NSW parliament.

Apparently individuals or journalists getting too aggressive and verbally hounding a politician in two different places makes them suspect of being a crazy political extremist.

I highly question the civil liberties implications of even having such a unit.

It seems like they have created a whole special division for singling out and targeting individuals based on suspicious beliefs and values, especially if there are indications they may be gun owners.

Subjecting citizens for investigating and monitoring based on these type of criteria seems like beginning to cross a blurry line for individual freedoms, and I would imagine there's probably going to be a huge amount of political bias as well, with the investigations being more likely to target those closer to one side of political persuasion.

from the article:

"In 2017, the NSW Police Force created a special section, the Fixated Persons Investigations Unit (FPIU). Its remit, as advertised, was to plug a growing and scary gap in policing: lone-wolf violent (or potentially violent) offenders who have been showing signs of dangerous extremism but fall short of the threshold for terrorism.

The target market, we were told, were the (mostly) men we traditionally refer to as "crazies". Individuals who have become obsessed with a single mad idea, a group in society or another person, and who are at risk of turning that obsession into acts of violence. An example might have been the man whose actions were part of the reason for the unit’s creation: Man Haron Monis, the Lindt cafe gunman.

Two years after its formation, the FPIU had reportedly completed more than 100 investigations, charged 40 people and seized 31 firearms. It was, we were told, working well and achieving its purpose."

This unit probably began the investigation, and then since they determined what they found could constitute something that was illegal, naturally they wanted to be the ones to make the arrest, but they are more of an anti-terrorism unit so were accustomed to much more heavy-handed tactics that were obviously blatantly overly excessive in this case.
Click to expand...

synopsis, please

kazenatsu · Jan 7, 2023

Moi621 said: ↑

synopsis, please
Click to expand...

Reporter publishes a story about politician involved in corruption. Politician uses the courts to try to punish reporter for the story and silence him, claiming defamation. Reporter tracks down politician two times and verbally harangues him, trying to confront him over the lawsuit and the truth of the story. The authorities in government then drastically overreact and treat the reporter as a dangerous threat, tracking the reporter down after the fact, arresting and criminally charging him.
The obvious implication is government authorities might be trying to cover up the politician's corruption and retaliate against the reporter for exposing the truth and raising a fuss about it. Either that or it was a drastic and inappropriate overreaction to something that is not much different from what people should have the right to do.

All the reporter did was verbally harass the politician, and not without good reason, because the politician was trying to use the courts to try to sue the reporter because of the news story. Sort of similar to reporters who confront with a camera and try to ask questions to someone accused of wrongdoing who doesn't want to talk. Some people believe this type of action should fall under freedom of the press, or, even if it may have been wrong, was not too different from normal and acceptable forms of news reporting.

Sorry, I can't make a synopsis shorter than that.

Moi621 · Jan 7, 2023

kazenatsu said: ↑

Reporter publishes a story about politician involved in corruption. Politician uses the courts to try to punish reporter for the story and silence him, claiming defamation. Reporter tracks down politician two times and verbally harangues him, trying to confront him over the lawsuit and the truth of the story. The authorities in government then drastically overreact and treat the reporter as a dangerous threat, tracking the reporter down after the fact, arresting and criminally charging him.
The obvious implication is government authorities might be trying to cover up the politician's corruption and retaliate against the reporter for exposing the truth and raising a fuss about it. Either that or it was a drastic and inappropriate overreaction to something that is not much different from what people should have the right to do.

All the reporter did was verbally harass the politician, and not without good reason, because the politician was trying to use the courts to try to sue the reporter because of the news story. Sort of similar to reporters who confront with a camera and try to ask questions to someone accused of wrongdoing who doesn't want to talk. Some people believe this type of action should fall under freedom of the press, or, even if it may have been wrong, was not too different from normal and acceptable forms of news reporting.

Sorry, I can't make a synopsis shorter than that.
Click to expand...

Requested Synopsis

If YOU can't say

Why Say Less?

kazenatsu · Jan 7, 2023

Moi621 said: ↑

Requested Synopsis

If YOU can't say

Why Say Less?
Click to expand...

Sorry, if your attention span is that short, there are going to be many political things you will never be able to understand.

How about this? "People in government did bad thing. Totalitarian oppression."
Simple enough for you?

Log in or Sign up

New South Wales Anti-Terrorism Unit Arrests YouTube Journalist

Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

New South Wales Anti-Terrorism Unit Arrests YouTube Journalist

Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches