Policy on the Police
Over the years there have been constant cases of police committing serious crimes. The cases that come to public attention in the newspapers are only the tip of the iceberg. Crimes committed by the police cost more than millions of dollars a year; they cost percentage points of Gross Domestic Product. To have companies like Apple and Microsoft, there needs to be an environment where the laws are strictly enforced. There are no technology companies in Haiti, not because blacks are stupid, but because there is minimal law and order. Australia is somewhere between Haiti and Columbia in terms of strictness of law enforcement.
The underlying cause of the serious crimes committed by police officers is that most police officers are Catholics. Catholics don’t believe in obeying the law. One of the first things they teach children at a Catholic school is, “If your family was dying of starvation, would you let them die, or would you steal a loaf of bread?” Protestants believe that you would let your family die of starvation rather than steal a loaf of bread, and indeed many Protestants did die of starvation during the “Great Depression”. That is why Protestants should be police officers and not Catholics.
If elected, we will increase the proportion of mainstream officers in the police, at least until the proportion is the same as in the general population. We will start with the senior officers, then the detectives, then other officers. However, anyone who is a police officer when we get into power will continue to work in the public service in some capacity, at the same or greater rate of pay, but not necessarily as a police officer. We will split up the police into a number of independent branches, each of which will report to the Minister. There will be a “Police Headquarters” branch, a Metropolitan General Duties branch, a Metropolitan Criminal Investigation branch, a Drug Squad branch, a Vice Squad branch, and so on.
We will set up a “National Guard” to replace the State Emergency Services. The “National Guard” will be like the organization of the same name in each American State, and will have police powers. Our goal will be that the entire population of ablebodied mainstream men will be in the “National Guard”. Criminals will understand that everyone they come across is probably an armed police officer, so they will be deterred from committing crime. We will go back to the situation we once had where crime was practically non-existent.
In our first term of office as a State Government, to reduce unemployment, we will train one-fifth of the registered unemployed for the National Guard. They will be paid the minimum wage during their training. The course will be similar to the basic training for the American Marines followed by the existing training for police recruits.
Police officers are constrained by phony legal opinions given to the police by corrupt prosecutors. These legal opinions say that there is no such thing as trespass, and no language can be considered obscene or offensive. In future, if officers attend an unruly party, they will say, “Do you own this house? Right, you’re under arrest.” If someone swears, a police officer will say, “The word I think you just said is mentioned in the schedule to the Crimes Act, so you’re under arrest.” If police visit a massage parlour, they will say, “Are the two of you married? Right, you’re both under arrest.”
Under Labor Governments, the police have introduced a “management technique” whereby they turn up at a crime scene two hours after the police have been called and the criminals have escaped. This has led to improved crime statistics, not because there is less crime, but because no-one bothers to call the police any more. If elected, we will introduce a “management technique” called “instant response”, whereby the police attend the scene immediately and apprehend the criminals in the act.
We are opposed to the extrajudicial killing of suspects, since a suspected criminal may not really be guilty. It is not the function of the police to determine guilt or innocence. Once we are fully in power, there will be no extrajudicial killing. While we are in the process of coming to power, a situation will exist where there is no law and order, and where the country is basically under enemy occupation. In such a situation, extrajudicial killing of suspects by the police may be justified, but only if certain conditions are met:
- mainstream people are not to be subject to extrajudicial killing;
- Aborigines and other people who will be entitled to Australian citizenship if we are elected are not to be subject to extrajudicial killing; and
- the person to be killed must have committed a crime that will be punishable by death if we are elected.
In the celebrated “Breaker Morant” case, an Australian officer, Lt Harry Morant, was put on trial for the extrajudicial execution of Boer prisoners. If the facts were as described by Lt Morant, we would not have prosecuted him. At the same time, European South Africans are people who should have the benefit of a trial, and who should not be subject to extrajudicial killing. We will not prosecute Catholic police officers for extrajudicial killing if they follow the above guidelines.
The “rules of evidence” of our legal system are designed for a homogenous society of law-abiding and God-fearing citizens. They are not designed for multicultural societies of atheistic scumbags who believe in “codes of silence”. If elected, we will reform the Evidence Act, so that many rules of evidence will only apply in trials of Australian citizens. We will also introduce interrogation of non-Australian citizens using so-called “truth serum”, which confuses the subject so he forgets he is not supposed to say anything. These measures, together with mainstream police officers, will allow us to completely and finally eradicate drug trafficking and other organized crime.