Tuesday 5 May 2015

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam – 05 May  2015

Australian Federal Police and the Rights of Australian Citizens

The Sri Lankan Community of which Bali 9 Leader Myuran Sukumaran was a part at least due to his birth in Sri Lanka, has also been looking into the Death Penalty issue – through various angles. The 2009 Battle related deaths largely of Tamils killed by the official armed forces was also Death Penalty for Tamil Tigers and the Community who lived in that area. These Tamils did not have a hearing. Previously when the Indian Peace Keeping Forces killed Tamils – it was worse – because  the Protector turned Perpetrator. This happens when the matter is brought down to political and business levels.

Today’s Sydney Morning Herald Report under the heading ‘Bali 9 executions: the mystery Australian Federal Police cop who took a stand’ reports as follows:

[According to Deputy Commissioner Mike Phelan, who spoke of his agonising decision to hand over information that eventually led to the deaths of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, the "vast majority" of AFP officers involved supported this call. Not doing so would potentially have allowed the drug smugglers to go free and eight kilograms of heroin to hit the streets. 
But at least one officer disagreed.
"I can remember at least one occasion at the time where a request was made by one of the investigators in Brisbane to come off the team," Phelan said. "[The officer] was not comfortable with us dealing with a death penalty situation.
"I didn't even ask the investigator's name. I just said 'no problem'."]

If Deputy Commissioner Mike Phelan said ‘no problem’ – then the question needs to be asked as to whether that was a lawful decision. If that was lawful – then it would have also been quite in order NOT to handover the information to  Indonesian Officers. If no-participation decision  was through discretionary powers then the decision about information was also taken through such powers. That is the power of Governance that every one of us has when acting beyond the law and outside legal boundaries.   

But then by stating ‘the "vast majority" of AFP officers involved supported this call’ Deputy Commissioner Mike Phelan is confessing to have used the primary level voting system to make the decision to share information of National significance. In that case the application to opt out also should have been put to the vote – conscience vote – of the whole institution . It was not within the Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to assess through majority vote below his level of authority nor his governance vote of One through discretionary powers. That kind of basis would apply only if Mr. Phelan decided to resign from his position. If this is not covered by the rules of AFP – then that is a serious problem affecting all Australians. That would have prevented the agony of the AFP officers concerned also – in the knowledge that they were doing their duty as per the Law rather than making conscience decisions at that stage.

When the Australian Federal Magistrates Court heard my complaint against the NSW Police who according to my assessment acted in breach of the law to obey the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University of NSW, I  could have drilled the junior officer who listed me as Sri Lankan – towards a  cheap win. That would have been sledging. But I refused to react at that level – as per their assessment of my status..  I sought changes to Policy -  where juniors would not be left to their own mind structures in deciding whether one was guilty or not. In that case the Police Officers had no knowledge, leave alone understanding,  of the particular section of the legislation  they ‘thought’ would justify their actions. Had there been firm guidelines in relation to Peaceful Assembly – those Junior Officers would not have acted in breach of the Law. If Indonesian judgment was deficient due to cultural differences based on geographical positioning – the judgement of the NSW Police was deficient due to generation gap – between the law makers of 1901 and the appliers in 2004 who demonstrated no respect for those elders nor knowledge of the legislation for practical purposes..

Vast Majority in our Police  Forces are in their jobs for economic reasons. Some are in it also for status. Only a few are in it for Service. The ‘Service’ component is the authority for use of discretionary powers. When it comes to sharing information beyond Australian borders – the decision maker needed to have invested in this Service Component through Global Principles and Values and not just Australian. Truth personal to that person renders Universal authority so long as one acts in the conscious of that Truth and that Truth alone. That person must show clear separation between position based thought process and decision on that basis on the one hand  and Truth based identity on the other.

At the primary level – we consider ourselves as separate individuals. At the secondary level we become relatives through various group structures. At tertiary level we feel One – with others being different parts of that Oneness. To the extent we provide service to the needy we invest in this Oneness even when there are no returns from those serviced.  When we accept the ‘no return’ situation – we raise the experience to that tertiary level where it exists as Eternal Energy. That completeness is Bliss.’ Beyond Consciousness

Deputy Commissioner Mike Phelan stated that his decision to handover  information was to protect Australians from drug related damage. He did not state that his decision was to ‘share’ information to prevent drug related damage. Deputy Commissioner Phelan was being honest about the basis. But that does not make it a Just decision that all of us are entitled to. It was a decision as per Australian Police Practice. It resulted in  handing over 9 Australians to Indonesians for the latter  to get the credit and elevate their own status as eliminators of drug  traders.  Could it have been influenced by the ‘gap’ between the reality of Australian Police who is prone to Public scrutiny more than Indonesian Police, and the ideal Guardian that most Police Officers would dream of becoming - to keep themselves motivated?

Every Government, relative to the citizen,  has the higher authority to interpret the law as per her/his institutional mind. But where there is no law covering our thoughts – we are Equal individuals and unless we feel that the other is a part of us – we do not have the moral authority to judge and/or to punish. If we do – the karma returns to us for limiting ourselves to the seen and the known.

We may be drug addicts and/or  we may be murderers or even terrorists. As per the system of Natural Justice we would be punished by our own selves through our own conscience. External agencies could facilitate  that process. The main duty of the external agencies is to prevent damage to others. But this cannot be done from a higher position by someone who has claimed a position of authority through our own voting system. Through the voting system we share  our belief and therefore an individual voter cannot be lower than the individual Administrator. The Government of Australia of which AFP is a part, would know through its own conscience that it failed the believing citizen. If they do not own this weakness – they would not be able to protect themselves and all those who are in their care from the effects of their own weaknesses.

I was yesterday  asked the following question:
[Since you are against death penalty can you let us know what kind of punishment you would propose for a convicted hardcore criminal or a convicted narcotic drug trafficker or rapist and murderer?  (I am not referring to drug addicts - who can be rehabilitated - or those blackmailed, forced or deceived into committing a crime). ]
I responded as follows through a question and answer session:
[First of all the hard-core criminals need to have been tried through a reliable judicial system.   If the system is known to be unreliable – the punishment needs to be discounted at that rate of weakness. The alternative to my mind is for a jury to hear the matter. Once the person is found guilty – the punishment would be proportionate to discounted or weighted  average of the demonstrated  pain and loss of the common politician with the power to make laws in that country/state and is able to escape punishment through use of subjective powers…………….One size does not fit all. The punishment I would consider appropriate would be relative to the punishment law makers of a country/ state undertake on themselves and those structurally close to them.  It is based on the principle that where I do not punish myself as per the laws I make – I do not have the authority to punish another. It’s when we punish others as we would punish ourselves  that  we have the blessings of Natural Justice in punishing through Administrative and Judicial pathways.  

You ask: Is it imprisonment for 30 or more years?

The same crime would earn different numbers of years in Sri Lanka vis a vis Australia. The latter’s is likely to be less due to higher level of practice of law by the citizen on voluntary basis which is strongly influenced by  the investment made in the Objective system of assessment which a country of migrants needs.

You ask: Imprisonment for life? –
Where we are Spiritual – as we tend to be in Sri Lanka more than in Australia – Imprisonment could help a person discard external influences and start looking within. This is a kind of meditation process. Then only the body is in prison. The mind is liberated – as I feel happened to some members of the Bali 9 group. I would therefore seek frequent assessments and once the person confirms a still mind I would release the body – so others could benefit through interactions with this person.

You ask: Penal servitude? Lashes? Confiscation of property? –
Like external medication  - these are outer forms that are more for shows by those who lack deep investment in Justice.
You seem to have a fixed outcome in your mind as per YOUR values.  There was no need to ask me for mine if it did not cover my value system.  You asked and I wrote my independent mind in response.  To you I am beating about the bush. You cannot then be a true Buddhist.

You state [Remember that it is not possible to rehabilitate each and every criminal.]

First of all you need to be conscious of the fact that you cannot catch each and every criminal. Your actions need to  facilitate each and every individual in your care to either not become a criminal or if s/he becomes one as per her/his assessment – to discipline her/himself before the irrevocable effects start happening.

You state also [Therefore, releasing such persons from prison after a period of time - unless they are in their dotage - means endangering lives of law-abiding citizens.]
What about all those offenders you never caught ?  They cause the confidence of the Public in the Law enforcement agencies to be seriously damaged.  In a democracy – the preferred pathway is self-transformation. This is what happened to the Bali 9 leaders through their family and community support. The Law enforcement agencies missed out on that Divine sharing.  I reinforce the following in my earlier response:

‘Where we are Spiritual – as we tend to be in Sri Lanka more than in Australia – Imprisonment could help a person discard external influences and start looking within. This is a kind of meditation process. Then only the body is in prison. The mind is liberated – as I feel happened to some members of the Bali 9 group. I would therefore seek frequent assessments and once the person confirms a still-mind I would release the body – so others could benefit through interactions with this person.’

To my mind, you are yet to transcend to the service level and hence your private thoughts  do not add value.

This is also my judgment delivered to the Australian Federal Police. 

No comments:

Post a Comment