The Photo Police

(from "New laws to crack down on voyeurs" The Australian, by Rick Wallace, Victorian political reporter, July 28, 2006)

You've got to be kidding? With all the problems with the Victorian courts and legal system, this requires the Attorney-General's attention?

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls said he would push for uniform laws, using new Queensland legislation as a model, to stamp out the sordid practice.

"This kind of behaviour is obviously offensive and I'll be suggesting we look at national reform in this area of the law," Mr Hulls said. "With new technology bringing smaller and more discreet cameras, such as mobile phone cameras, we need a consistent national approach."

The attorneys-general will also consider similar measures to prevent the unauthorised use of children's photos on websites.

I love the way Hulls thinks. He does keep his prudish priorities in order. Hulls wants to protect the poor, innocent women from being photographed up their skirts.
Will the legislation also restrict women from taking photographs of men at sporting events? After all, many women will tell you they just like seeing the guys run around in those little shorts. Or is a man's butt that different from a woman's, Mr Hulls?

Someday soon, we'll have a digicam buy in just like the recent knife buy in. Men, not women of course, will be asked to trade in their digital cameras and mobile phones for sports tickets.
There will be police sweeps on the beaches and cafes. Police will ask to see all the mobile phones and digital cameras, then spend the rest of the afternoon reviewing the photos to decide who to arrest.

Frankly, Mr Hulls, I don't do "upskirt photos." In fact, until your office began discussing it as a state legislative issue, I hadn't given the idea a single thought. And I've never seen anyone do one.

And how will the police know if it is a father taking shots of his children playing?
Will the police tour the playgrounds and Maccas' daily?

And why, tucked into this "significant piece of legislation" is a note that no longer allows the Family Court to order female sterilization? The Family Court should never have been allowed such power in the first place.
The Family Court has no appreciation of disability matters, especially emotional and intellectual disabilities.
It serves as a blatant example of the prejudice in Australia agains the disabled, in fact. -- especialy disabled men, but ...

The proposed laws on sterilisation of girls with intellectual disabilities come amid anecdotal evidence many girls are being sterilised without Family Court authorisation.

Sterilisation is a last-resort measure that is only performed on girls with decision-making disabilities who do not fully grasp the potential to become pregnant from sexual contact and may not be able to cope with pregnancy.

It requires the approval of the Family Court, but anecdotal evidence suggests this is sometimes not gained before it is carried out, possibly because the legal costs are too great.

The Family Court is jealous of the the medical profession? Hint: Read the last line of the excerpt again.
A Family Court that cannot manage healthy families without prejudice and perjury is no place to be deciding on the future of young intellectually disadvantaged women.


I sat my digicam on the beach recently -- digicam and me in plain sight -- to film a gorgeous sunset over Port Philip bay. The only people in the shot was a mother (or aunt?) playing with a few kids, just visible on one side of the shot.
But in the new Victoria, I suppose that would make such appreciation of the beauty of Australia a crime, wouldn't it, Mr Hulls?

In the words of Bugs Bunny: "What an ultra marooon!"

Got teach your legal system the concept of equal protection under the law, Mr Hulls. They don't know it -- and more laws won't teach them.
Stop trying to find work for yourself. There's plenty of useful things you can be doing.