Club Raids at Xmas!

Discussion Open Forum
41

Ironlady,

I always thought your handle to be ironic, but after reading this rant I’m a little perplexed to say the least.

You think it’s somehow fine to totally disregard the rights of 280 people to catch 20. It reminds me of Confucius’ first day as prime minister where he killed his predessesor just to let everybody know that he was on the job(or something to that effect).

We know, we know, we know it’s a Confucion society, but I’m sorry somethings just stink. One being the rich smell of ammonia as the winds of obstinacy slash my piss back against my legs and the other being the foul smell of hypocrisy carried on those winds from its source.

280 people suffered for 20. And what is more if you were to bust a place like “The Second Floor” and only find 7% of people on something then I think you can safely say this place doesn’t have a drug problem worth policing, because if there was any place on earth where people would be on anything that was the place. On the other hand 600,000NT in fines in police coffers probably seems enticing. I would certainly rate it a good haul for half a nights work. In fact, I might even hand out a few promotions to anybody who can do it on a weekly basis.

42

I reckon 7% is justification for the raids, in a country that very plainly points out that drug using is not acceptable. Remember, as a previous poster pointed out, there was a lot of ‘sharing’ going on amongst the clubbers when it came to providing samples, so the figure is probably higher. As was pointed out before, being in a dance club at 11am is a little unusual, to say the least, if no drugs were involved. What is your problem with enforcing the anti-drugs laws? If 7% of the people in the club were murderers or terrorists, would you say the raid was justified?

43

Hmm…Murderers and terrorists huh. You’re going to have to let me think about that one.

OK, I got it. I’m going to go right out on a limb here and draw a distinction between a few strung out clubbers and 20 known murderers or terrorists.

What’s more I doubt whether or not you can determine if somebody is a terrorist through a urine test.

My problem is not with the enforcement of the law, but with how it’s enforced. I’m sure Rodney King would agree with me on this one.

Do people seriously think that these club raids are for the sole purpose of curbing the elicit drug trade? Do you think that they will be successful? I stick by my assertion that it’s all about targeting the little guy, because he can’t protect himself. Rest assured “Bemused” if there really were 20 terrorist and murderers in that club there wouldn’t be a police officer within a “Bull’s Roar” of the joint. They’d have the common sense to conduct their inquires a little more discretly.

So what to make of this post:
Support the police enforcing the law.
Question how and the motives behind.
Stay vigilent. You could be next, if the agenda changes.

44

Is this “due process” or more something like the right to search?

You’re getting beyond the hazy boundaries of my legal knowledge at this point…

Terry

45

I heard that night it was full of gays… so the Taiwanese police with their usual Gaestapo raiding tatics decided to “kill two birds with the one stone”

Ever see what they police do to a bar found without a license… ten officers rush the bar with a sledgehammer, ramsack it and smash it up

And on a different topic i saw a policeman saturday morning driving down Keelung Roads without his helmet and just his policeman’s hat on… oh if I only had a camera that morning

46

The question is, is your right to enjoy an uninterrupted evening out more important than the duty of the police to try to keep society drug-free (as this is the decision that the legislators of Taiwan have apparently come to as to what they want to permit in terms of drugs – doesn’t even really matter what your or my personal opinion on drug use is). For a Westerner, traditionally the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the group as a whole; in Chinese culture it has traditionally been the opposite. Maybe there is some of this operating here.

However, in this case, you are not even talking about something like the right to enjoy reasonable privacy in your own home. You are in a public venue. Perhaps we have to assume there is a reasonable chance of a police enforcement action in such a place, especially if they are coming up with 7% positives. Maybe they should put some sort of legal disclaimer on the door: “These premises are subject to search by the authorities without warning.” Then anyone who entered the club would have had fair warning about what could happen (as if they had no inkling in the first place, but maybe you’d prefer to see something like the “Caution: Hot” markings on the McDonald’s cups to avoid lawsuits!)

You can bash the police all you want for moneymaking raids, corruption, and whatall, but when you get right down to it, that’s not an easy job. The government has decided that drug use is not desirable and is in fact illegal. How would you suggest the police go about eradicating this behavior? In your opinion is there a better way they could go about this (i.e., not inconveniencing [yes, inconveniencing, not causing them to suffer or depriving them of their human rights] large numbers of people, but still effectively preventing the behavior?)

Terry

47

I think it’s fairly obvious from the intelligent posts on this topic as to who actually goes out to rave clubs and who has no idea what they’re talking about.
OK ironlady, look at it like this: if the cops targeted foreigners as being a class of people whereby random busts would yield a good likelihood of convictions (as has been opined in a previous post), would you tolerate them knocking on your apartment door at 4am tomorrow morning, demanding you get dressed, accompany them to the police station and piss in a cup?
Whether the bust location is a dance club or a private residence has no bearing on the issue at hand – that is, the round-em-up-march-em-off-for-tests strategy is an absolutely fundamental breach of our rights.
Do you think the level of human rights protection we receive should be automatically diminished simply because of our location?
Ir rape OK because it happened inside prison walls? Is a beating OK because it happened inside a police interrogation room? I would hope your answer is no. The examples may be extreme, but they are germain to the point.
Being herded up like cattle and transported to a police station and being forced to produce samples of bodily fluids is NOT OK, even in the case of youngsters out dancing till the early hours.

48

Ok, here’s another analogy. Adultery and prostitution (well soliciting anyway) are illegal in Taiwan. I think it’s probably safe to say that more than 7% of people in a hotel are their committing adultery or prostitution. There’s also a hell fo a lot of people there for legitimate reasons. Do you think it would be fair if all these people were hauled off to the police station for ten hours and put on the national news branded as adulterors and prostitutes? Think of that next time you’re staying in a hotel. I guess more than 7% of foreigners in Taiwan are working illegally too. So you won’t mind if the police haul YOU down to the station?

Also anyone who thinks that going in a busting nightclubs is going to do anything to stop a drug ‘problem’ is either pretty stupid or vaery naive. Don’t argue that the police have to do this to solve the problem.

Ironlady, this argument

quote[quote] Human rights, to me, means that every human has the same rights. So saying that women can't do X because they are female would be a human rights violation. In this case, every human in Taiwan is forbidden from using a certain group of drugs, regardless of gender or national origin. There is no discrimination. [/quote]

just doesn’t hold up. If the US government passed a law forbidding everybody (regardless pof sex, colour or creed) from criticising the government would this be a violation of the right to free speech? According to your logic it wouldn’t.

quote[quote] I don't happen to believe that there exists a basic human right to use illegal drugs (or whatever) in public places [/quote]

Maybe not, but that’s not what’s at issue. There should exist a human right to partake in legal activity without the fear of police harrassment. I’m talking about the majority who WERE NOT TAKING DRUGS here.

quote[quote] And besides doing this kind of raid, what other ways could the police potentially go after the drug users? [/quote]

Oh come on! Don’t you realise? The police know who are making and distributing these drugs. It’s the people who give them money to look the other way and bust some party kids instead.

Bri

49

Hmmm. Imagine if the busies had no breathalyzers. How many times d’you think they’d get away with hauling every driver stopped at a roadblock down to the cop shop for a 10-hour wait and a piss in a cup?

I’m guessing not very many, but according to your logic, it would be a prefectly acceptable way of finding drunken drivers and anyone who objects is just a whiner.

Face, it, the cops are absolutely not just doing their best to enforce legislation – they are simply looking for the easiest option and the path of least resistance.

Oh and Bri, did you forget that the cops did in fact start knocking on peoples’ hotel room doors at 4 a.m. looking for illegal riders a little while back?

There was enough public outrage that the practice was stopped almost immediatley. I guess the riders tended to have more clout than a bunch of non-X’ed kids.

Of course, if it had been Ironlady and her husband rousted from their sleep by gun-toting cops, she’d have gathered up her clothes meekly and accompanied the police, who were after all only doing their duty.

I have no sympathy with those who take drugs in public and in places known to be subject to searches – to me, whose been high on something or other for the better part of the last 20 years – it seems to be asking for trouble.

But that has nothing to do with human rights abuses, which this most certainly is, and has been agreed upon by the authorities here, also (see hotel story).

50

Hey, don’t assume that my 6’0" 200+ pound feisty Latino husband would go meekly along anywhere!

[QUOTE](your argument) just doesn’t hold up. If the US government passed a law forbidding everybody (regardless pof sex, colour or creed) from criticising the government would this be a violation of the right to free speech? According to your logic it wouldn’t.(/QUOTE]

I think your logic is a bit off on this one. You are assuming here that there is a basic right to free speech, so obviously a government passing a law against that is a violation of a basic human right. However, in the case we’re discussing, no one seems to be saying that there is a right to use illegal drugs in a club. So, we cannot say that passing a law against the use of illegal drugs in clubs is a violation of human rights.

There is always a balance between freedoms and protections in any society. I just got back from a language exchange and I asked my partner what she thought of this case (she had heard of it). She was most emphatic that she had no problem whatsoever with the concept (and, funnily enough, this is a woman who knows her piss: she used to do the urine testing for the national athletic teams!) Now, you can argue that she has this viewpoint because she does not frequent clubs. Probably that is why she has this viewpoint. But I suspect that most people who do not go clubbing regularly and especially those who do not use drugs will have little sympathy for the “victims” of a mid-morning raid on a club. And probably the majority of the citizens of Taiwan fall into this group. The Legislative Yuan certainly has little need of clubbing for excitement considering what they get up to…but (again, theoretically!) the majority rules and majority opinion or sentiment is what shapes both the law and the way it is implemented.

If I feel strongly enough that a certain law is truly unjust, then I have to ask myself if I have the moral courage to break it (i.e, do I think it is truly the right thing to do) and also if it is practically desirable to break it(i.e., can I hack the consequences and does it really matter to me). Everyone is going to have a different set of answers to these questions. People have to pick their fights, and often as people get older, they choose to fight less (hence terms like “the idealism of youth” and so on.) Usually the degree to which any given injustice affects them personally is a major factor in these decisions. Certainly many people felt that Nazi treatment of the Jews in World War II was unjust, but not too many of them did anything about it. Probably proportionately fewer people would be worried about the “right” of people not to be searched at a club. The broad consensus of a society about such questions is what shapes (in theory!) its legislation, its judicial processes, and its culture. The US has always been very careful to delineate individual rights (even our Federal system is founded on the individual rights of states); Asian societies for the most part have not been this way, although some are starting to move in that direction. Again, it’s the perception of public good versus individual inconvenience.

The fact is that in Taiwan, this type of search is legal. If you feel this is wrong, you have a couple of choices: you can make a lot of noise in influential public forums, get the ears of the decision-makers and hope that you can get the situation changed; you can avoid putting yourself personally in situations where you could be subjected to this kind of search, thus avoiding inconvenience to yourself, but not changing the status quo; or you can exercise one of your most precious freedoms, freedom of movement, and go to another place where the system and the mainstream culture are more congruent with your ideas, thus both avoiding inconvenience and lowering your blood pressure.

I guess everyone has to balance the reason(s) they are living abroad with the things that are not to their liking or in agreement with their values and decide whether they really want to live abroad. I mean, I hate having the old guy at the exit door of Costco count my items, but if I want to shop there I have to put up with it. Otherwise I can always take my business to Wellcome (oh, the horror!) Actually this brings me to a major injustice: generations of children growing up to believe that “welcome” is spelled with two 'l’s. THAT’s a cause I would take up in a minute.

Terry

51
quote:
Originally posted by ironlady: The fact is that in Taiwan, this type of search is legal. If you feel this is wrong...

No it’s not legal. Search and seizure without a warrant issued by a judge or there being extenuating circumstances is illegal in Taiwan. The chief justices’ ruling is recent, well-known, and as far as the media has said, has been conveyed to police chiefs around the nation.
The fact that club owners let the police in to violate their customers’ rights has nothing to do with the law. It is to do with intimidation and corruption.
As previous posters have said, the little people are trampled on to appease the politicians, police quotas, and people like you who feel insulated, smug and happy knowing that the police are busy attending to other things.

52
quote[quote] If I feel strongly enough that a certain law is truly unjust, then I have to ask myself if I have the moral courage to break it [/quote]

Ironlady,
I really don’t think 20 somethings out on the piss consider whether they’re breaking the LAW or not when they swallow a little pill which will prolong their fun.
God, in the 80’s, I did far worse than that!
Spent far more money enjoying what I did, was far more hooked on it, and far more aggressive in my endeavours…similar to the effects of prolonged alcohol abuse, which just so happens to be a ‘legal’ drug…
But you know, I never once worried that I was going to be hauled off the dance floor or dragged away from a rock concert. Why? Because I was in America. Can you imagine the furor that would arise over something like this happening in the US? It’s impossible, because it’s unconstitutional, and everyone knows it. Full stop!
Whether or not you agree with narcotics use or the legalities of them, it’s not the point that your opponents here are trying to make. And it’s that which has to change in Taiwan for people to see this country as a place which respects human rights.
With all the stink over freedom of the press these days and bla bla KMT slush fund accounts bla bla wank wank, you’d think that the pigs would start doing something a bit more constructive, such as breaking up slimey mafia rings like the one discussed in the Taiwan Fights thread.
I do wonder why Spin hasn’t been raided or shut down after all these years with all the nasty crap that goes on there. I think if we put on our thinking caps we could figure that one out pretty easily.

53

I seem to be a bit behind the curve on the current Taiwan law stuff. When I lived here before, these things were perfectly legal…have been gone for a couple of years and am now back, so I haven’t heard about the recent ruling. If you go back far enough, people were just used to being checked regularly in clubs (even going to the old discos used to be illegal, you know, under martial law). In those days there was discrimination as the foreigners were generally let go and the Taiwanese got into trouble.

Obviously if there is a legal precedent or legislation that states that this type of search is illegal IN THIS SYSTEM, and a rational person would have a reasonable expectation of NOT being subjected to it under the circumstances, then I come down with you in saying that the search is WRONG as performed.

That having been said, I fully agree with (I think it was Alien – I can’t quite figure out this whole “quote” thing!) that the folks who are out there doing drugs in the open are not considering the possible consequences. However, I do not feel that makes them victims if the consequences (assuming they were LEGAL searches, again!!) fall upon them. What it makes them is kids, ("de folly of yout’ ", as my Irish high school English teacher used to say) and some people remain kids until they hit their 60s or so! I taught high school last year in the States, and the one phrase nobody wanted to hear was “responsibility”, but in the end an adult has to take responsibility for his or her own actions and exercise mature judgment. Since most people are not 100% law-abiding even if the laws are considered just and are well and fairly enforced, that would then mean that in a practical sense adults balance the plusses and minuses of any particular action that might bring a consequence and then make a decision on what to do, taking responsibility for the consequences.

So basically, my opinion goes like this: if the law states that this kind of search is LEGAL, then too bad, stop crying guys. You’ve made your choice knowing there would be a reasonable expectation that the government might choose to exercise its right to administer its own law. And since you could be said to be entering into a kind of tacit agreement to abide by the laws of a place when you enter on a visitor’s or resident visa, seems like you have little grounds for complaint.

If this kind of search is ILLEGAL (as seems to be the case here, as far as people here tell me, and which I’ve no reason to doubt – although I haven’t read the opinion and I’m not a lawyer, anyway) then that’s a different matter entirely.

Now can I stop sleeping in all the clothes I own just in case the police break in at 4:00 a.m.?

Terry

54

Oh Steally One,

Your language exchange partner used to do the testing for the National Athletics Team and you are wheeling her out here as an example of a local Taiwanese who has no sympathy for clubbers on drugs, raids on clubs and making people stand in line to take a urine test.

You are not the least bit aware that perhaps,…just maybe, shit I don’t know but that that person would hold those views. If you could perhaps find somebody who had stood in line to take the tests, and get them to say they have no sympathy for those pill popping bastards in there who got them into this mess, and that they are glad the cops busted that hole and dragged them down to the station for a urine test so that we can reinforce our sence of Chinese cultural identity. Then you might be able to garner some credibility with that line of arguement.

Good luck.

In addition, “She of Steal and Intestinal Fortitude” a little off the topic, but you might be able to help me out on this one. As a casual observer of Taiwanese society I have often heard trumpeted the arguement that we Asians value the rights of Society over that of the Individual.

However, whilst I can acknowledge that such an ethos exists on some micro to macro level, it certainly doesn’t exist on the macro to micro level as Confucious may have intended it 2,000 years ago. In general, I would argue this:

Asian Values is a rhetorical arguement aimed at societies which are being torn apart at the seems by rampant individualism, complete disregard for the law and a desperate grab for riches that may or may not exist tomorrow. It’s used to keep despotic leaders in power, and to justify the use of armed forces (including the police) against ones own people.

Conversely, in some other societies, including the culture I grew up in and presume that you did too, individualism is touted and respected. However, it too is essentially a rhetorical arguement albeit an important element in societies where the state is IN CONTROL. We don’t have to go much further than where you held you Prime Ministership to see some great example of this and the use of cops to put down miners strikes. In a country like England, break the law, get caught and your pretty much done for.

I’m not saying here that the miners were breaking the law, what I am saying is that without individual protections and rights under the law a country like England would internally combust. This point was sorely tested during your reign.

Western societies need individual protections and rights for the system to work, because most people feel an indelible connection to it, subscribe and adhere to it.

Most Chinese asian societies need broard social cohesiveness because the individuals, clans and self interest groups are tearing the societies apart, because of there lack of connectedness, desire to live as far away from the emperor as humanly possible and moral code that puts ones family ahead of the state.

Ok flame away.

55

“It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing.”

The way the cops bust into clubs, all packing guns and body armor, reminds me of the movie “Swing Kids.”
Gotta wonder what Mayor Ma and his goons have got planned for us next. Maybe after going for our urine tests, clubbers will be forced to watch puppet shows or read interesting Taipei Times features on ceramics and opera until we appreciate Chinese culture, and discard our decadent Western ways.

56

Maybe the penalty for drug smuggling should be changed from “death” to “mandatory English classes” for Chinese and “mandatory Taiwanese puppet shows” for foreigners…

As for the preceding “Asian Values” post, maybe I’m tired, but I am not sure what the point was, so I can’t really answer. Sorry. Maybe things will look more obvious to me tomorrow.

Terry

57

What does drug smuggling have to do with illegally detaining innocent people without a warrant and without due cause?

58

Ironlady,

“For a Westerner, traditionally the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the group as a whole; in Chinese culture it has traditionally been the opposite. Maybe there is some of this operating here.”

The point I am making is that in a Western society the state is in control of the people, without civil liberties Western societies wouldn’t survive. It’s not a luxury of the societies we were born into; it is an essential element of their success. It is the buy in that allows for plurality, tolerance and respect for the institutions of government.

The view that Chinese culture traditionally places the state ahead of the individual and hence some how validates the insurping of peoples rights, doesn’t really hold water.

Firstly, as I hope I pointed out in my previous post Chinese societies are far from cohesive, pluralistic states with people working together for the betterment of their societies. One of the reasons why they are not is a question of trust. Trust between the people and government. Trust can only be established through respect and that respect, I’m sorry just doesn’t exist here in Taiwan at present.

Secondly, the view that Western societies don’t put the state first against the rights of individuals, seems rediculous to me. Government sponsored breaking of strikes is just one example of this, MaCathisim in the States is another. The state is all powerful in Western societies. It’s one of the reasons, I suspect, you will find a lot of longtimers here in Taiwan enjoying the freedoms of a bit of lawlessness, and perhaps lamenting its passing as Taiwan’s democracy matures.

59

I think grasshopper has got one thing right. I despise the nanny state I am living in at the moment (the UK). Almost everything you do requires a licence. Even watching the television. As a rapidly aging male, I cannot legally buy a beer at 2 in the morning to bolster my beer gut. Et cetera et cetera.

Why is drug taking illegal ? Cannot adult members of society accept there is a risk attached to many everyday things. Driving a car, walking on the pavement. There is a chance you may be hit by another driver. There may be a loose paving stone and you might fall. Most members of western society seek to find someone else upon whom to pin the blame for their own shortcomings. It is claimed drug taking is illegal because it fuels crime. There is of course a link, as there is with intoxicating liquor. However, crime existed long before the Victorian days of experimenting with laudanum and ether, and exists today in cultures with a low incidence of drug taking. The root cause of crime appears to be poverty - and you cannot stop poverty by busting up a drug enhanced party of well-off, middleclass, employed, twentysomethings. Turning the sink estates and shantytowns around is much more difficult than that, and cannot be achieved in a politician’s five year term of office.

60
quote[quote] . You are assuming here that there is a basic right to free speech, so obviously a government passing a law against that is a violation of a basic human right. However, in the case we're discussing, no one seems to be saying that there is a right to use illegal drugs in a club. [/quote]

No but there is a human right to gather in a legal place for a legal purpose (eg dancing) without fear of intimidation by the police.

I’m not talking about the rights of drug users, but the rights of non-using club-goers.

I’m not talking about the rights of drug users, but the rights of non-using club-goers.

I’m not talking about the rights of drug users, but the rights of non-using club-goers.

Did I just say that three times. Maybe, becuase I want to make sure you see the piont this time.

quote:
What does drug smuggling have to do with illegally detaining innocent people without a warrant and without due cause?

Sandman said that, but it’s worth saying again.

This si getting ridiculously repetitive. I’m saying we should be able to go to a club (without taking drugs) and not have to worry about being hauled off to the copshop for hours and be on national TV for our inlaws to see, and people keep replying “well don’t do drugs then” or somehting to the effect. Please think about it.

Bri