The Subversion Of The Constable
If you turn the Constable into your Stasi, better hope you don't lose their faith in your lawful nature. As there will be nothing between you and those you scorned if they swap sides.
In 1981 Robert Muldoon did not oppose the Springboks playing the All Blacks. Even back in those days, rugby was the great uniter of this country. Liberal or Conservative, we get together to support our team, and so we should, we're the best at this form of cooperation contest. That is, when politicians and incompetent idealists aren't busy smashing the psychology of our people.
In 1981, someone had a bright idea. They got together and divided the country to complain about another country's racism. Our Liberal forebears were idealistic and right to oppose the stupidity of their time, they just shouldn't have destroyed a rugby game over it. After all, our country wasn't the one doing apartheid; why not let our non-apartheid team destroy their apartheid team on the field? Use it as a clear example of why apartheid is stupid. Better than tearing the country in two…
Back then, a young man worked in the Office of Constable, on that day, he would have been three years on the job. He witnessed Kiwi versus Kiwi, Conservative versus Liberal. To the honourable men in the Office of Constable, it was a dark time for our unity but good training for mob management. Another dark day for the Office of Constable though less memorable than that day at Rugby Park - the day Neoliberal’s blurred the line between Constable and Enforcement Officer.
To enforce a policy is to wage war; police shouldn’t get to enforce unconsented policy before it is proven to be lawful. There's no difference between doing that and forcing a belief onto someone before you can prove that belief is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. That is why we have the court of proof, however, the burdon of proof only seems to apply to those who don’t make the legislation. I don't get to make a claim or incite an action that has repercussions for someone else without proof it is lawful. Why does the government make binding legislation/policy without proof that it is lawful? They can make stupid or rational rules through your implied consent, even if there is no proof to support its positive benefit to civility or safety. However, there has always been a way out. Most of these rules require fraud to enforce. It used to be the case that if you could prove fraud, you could make a fraudulent contract null and void.
The subversion of the Constable was done through its amalgamation with the policy enforcer "Police." Turning protector of the peace into a split personality role. One dedicated to waging war for the Crown, while the other is a protector of the peace. One aims to earn revenue for the misspending of Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative politicians, while the other is tasked with protecting the lawful from the unlawful. Unfortunately, indebted politicians pay them to focus on enforcement by borrowing fake money from the International Monetary Fund. Through the intense focus on traffic enforcement grifting and a rushed Police College, the blurred line between the Office of Constable and the Office of Enforcement has become near invisible. Unfortunately, for some ignorant thugs in blue, the courts still see the line and don't have a choice but to recognise it. After all, it might be them in front of a brown/blue shirt one day.
The reason for separating the two is simple; rules aren't always lawful, and there always has to be one group based solely in the law. This is because stupid rules become bad legislation, which become bad laws. Bad laws lead to an unlawful society, and if you compromise everyone with nonsense ideology, corruption, and the trauma of bad laws, who will steer us back on track?
Time has yet to determine who will step up to the plate and be a proper example of the Office of Constable. At the very least, I got to know a man who has protected the peace for forty-four years. By all accounts, he did a bloody good job; he preferred the conversation over forcing beliefs onto people, and he prevented harm, injury, or loss from occurring by having faith in the conversation. He's seen plenty of bad legislation in his time, keeping unproven rules as consent-based keeps respect between the Constable and the lawful Activist.
I have learned much through my diverse interactions with Constables and Enforcement Officers. I have learned that many Enforcement Officers are one inappropriately-fitted mask away from a gang member. But, on the other hand, I have learned that many Constables are good Constables and maintain the sense of honour their oath clearly states.
But, I don't know why thousands of Constables and Detectives have failed to investigate their employers for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, False advertising, and Fraud. Offences and crimes that led to the deaths and injuries of many of our loved ones. Loved ones who pursued a lawful life and made our communities better when politicians regularly failed to do so. As Edmund Burke once said, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. When is the Office of Constable going to stop doing nothing?
