Talk:Security Response Section

Criticisms

@Andykusama: You stated that interstate units were established "with the assurance that officers on patrol would not be deployed with semi-automatic weapons" citing Marsh in the Adelaide Review who linked to a ABC article and a The Age article. I take it that you mean to conduct regular patrols with rifles Marsh used "would not be used in general patrols". The ABC article in relation to the Public Order and Riot Squad (NSW) was based on the press conference in which it was stated, unless an Active Armed Offender incident, the Commissioner approves on a case by case basis whether to patrol with rifles and that you may see them deployed as a standard patrol in 2018 depending upon the environment. A media release by the Commissioner stated that the "The community can expect to see officers carrying these weapons in public on occasion". The Age article is regarding equipping other police units including rural police with rifles not the SRS equivalent Victorian unit the Critical Incident Response Team which patrols with rifles. The Queensland Mobile Response Capability is a similar unit which patrols with rifles. You also quoted Sutton's article in the Australian Defence Force Journal who was referring to Police tactical groups, such as STAR Operations, not specialist general duties units who don't train with ADF, nor are equipped with weapons and vehicles used by the ADF. In regards to Program 1033 citing the ABC article, Australia has no equivalent to Program 1033 in which surplus military equipment is gifted to police such as the South Australia Police. You stated that "These developments may be in breach of Section 114" citing the ABC article with Sutton referring to the Police tactical groups not specialist general duties units and the argument was "look like a military force" not an argument that they are a military force.--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Melbguy05: Thanks Melbguy05 for your detailed summary and page edits.

I've looked at your references and other materials available.

1. Regarding the first issue about the comparison to other units interstate, I was under the impression that other states were not carrying similar weapons on patrol, based on this followin section in the Marsh article

when New South Wales and Victorian Police announced plans to acquire new ranges of semi-automatic rifles in 2017 and 2019, authorities specifically reassured communities they would not be used in general patrols.

In 2017, New South Wales Police said its Public Order and Riot Squad’s newly acquired Colt M4 rifles would be stowed away in patrol cars unless required, and were unlikely to be seen on the street outside major events like Sydney’s New Year’s Eve celebrations – at least while the national terror threat level remained at ‘Probable’. Over in Victoria, Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton told The Age in December that “unless they are responding to a critical incident, the rifles will be securely stored at the police station or in vehicles and the community won’t see them”.

However looking further into articles on the Victorian, NSW and QLD police units, it does seem that they will be involved to varying degrees in regular patrols. So your deletion of that sentence is justified, thank you for the correction.

2. The Australian Defence Force Journal citation, description of SRS as militarisation of the police. I understand your point that this Sutton reference was specifically relating to police units linked to ADF. However I do still think it's a very relevant critisism of SRS. This is because a) the Sutton journal and ABC article specifically mentioned links between ADF and police units, it was also about a broader convergence between police and the military, and B) the Security Response Section has been considered a "militarisation of the police", even though it is not a Police Tactical Group or equipt with vehicles/training of the ADF. The term "militarisation" has been used specifically to describe the Security Response Section in the following examples:

- "The increasing militarisation of the police in South Australia is a plain breach of this licence and sets a dangerous precedent for other states to follow." https://overland.org.au/2020/08/security-theatre-in-an-age-of-anxiety/

- "Grant Stevens badly timed and ill-thought out move to arm SA cops like the over-militarised US forces" https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=AAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adelaidenow.com.au%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Ftory-shepherd-are-bigger-guns-the-answer%2Fnews-story%2F4a0b9b5ba39509bf1f794f958a0d943b&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium

- A protest titled "No to the militarisation of police in SA - Disband SRS!" which had 1.5k responses on facebook, with event description "This is a terrifying further step in the militarisation of police. Having heavily armed police routinely patrolling public spaces has nothing to do with the safety of ordinary people." https://www.facebook.com/events/2705514776361716/ also covered here https://www.mix1023.com.au/local/up-to-1000-people-to-protest-new-police-anti-terror-section-at-parliament-house-this-evening/

So I think it's very reasonable to include in the critisism of SRS the concept of "militarisation". However I conceed that "military style training" may not be accurate in reference to SRS. Possibly changing the phrase

The use of heavy equipment and military style training has been described as a "militarisation"

to

The development and arnaments of the Security Response Seciton have been critisised as a "militarisation" of the police [with reference to Brooker in Overland].

I do think that this critisism of "militarisation" is worth further expanding and contextualising it with the arguments put forward by Sutton in the ADF Jorunal. The 1033 Program does not directly relate to SRS but is part of important context to the broader trends of militarisation that SRS falls under as outlined in the ABC article "Why the creeping militarisation of our police has experts worried". This is why I had prefaced Suttons quote by "Concerning the broader trend of militarised police forces in Australia". But I can see that this specific quote seems to imply that the SRC are trained by ADF.

Perhaps a better quote from the ADF jounal which provides a contextual frame for why militarisation of police is inherrently negative, is:

"One of the characterising features of the early 21st century, both in Australia and among English-speaking democracies, is the phenomenon of the military becoming increasingly involved in areas traditionally considered the responsibility of police, while elements of the police are simultaneously becoming more militaristic. Historically, a close ideological and operational alliance between the police and military has been associated with repressive regimes."

I look forward to reading your responses or counter suggestions to frame these important critisisms.

Andykusama (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Andykusama: Sutton's article was discussing police tactical groups using the term paramilitary units. Sutton describes that they "train with the ADF" and that they are equipped with "weapons and vehicles used by the ADF". He used two examples one Victorian and one NSW both police tactical groups. Neither Sutton or the ABC used the term "heavy equipment". Sutton used "military style training" in a sentence with "collaboration with the ADF" as police tactical groups train with the ADF in collaboration. The example of a protest is not a reliable source WP:RS. The criticisms section already contains the word 'militarisation' citing Brooker in Overland which I moved from the introduction. The suggested Sutton quote is not relevant to the SRS as the SRS will not have a "close ideological and operational alliance" with the ADF, again this is a reference to police tactical groups.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Andykusama: Marsh didn't was "drawn ... into a broader conversation". He discusses not the SRS but the SAPOL in general with mention of radical ideas like defunding and concerns of racial profiling and e criticise the timing of the establishment. In the introduction he states "picked an uncomfortable moment" and later that the SRSxcessive force by SAPOL.--Melbguy05 (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Melbguy05: Although I'm appreicative of your general comments and edits so far in the interest of improving the article, I think your last edit of removing the criticism is uncalled for. Marsh did criticise the timing of the establishment of the SRS. To me it seems very clear in the Marsh article (and I can source other references shortly) that the latest edit on the page (to remove "The timing of the establishment has also been criticised in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement and the killing of George Floyd just two months prior, drawing concerns about the role of the police and deadly force used against BIPOC") is removing a valid and expressed criticism. It is reflected in Marsh's article and also representative of other people's conserns (which I will refernece but for now one source is enough to list the criticism). Marsh quite explicitly states: "If New Zealand is capable of such reflection even in the wake of a massacre, it’s little wonder people are disappointed Christchurch’s sister city chose this moment to give its police more guns." - this is an overt criticism of the timing, and as you mention in the introduction "The state government picked an uncomfortable moment to unveil a new, assault rifle-carrying unit" - so the article is very focused on the timing as much as the actual details of SRS. It doesn't make direct links between, for example, broader defunding of the police and SRS, but that's the point, the article, and criticism of SRS is that is that the timing of it is amoungst these broader issues being reported on in Marsh's article and previously reflected in the article. Maybe if you have issues you can suggest some alternative wording rather than outright deleting the critism. Andykusama (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Andykusama: The establishment of the SRS was announced in June 2019 with the press release stating equipment would include "longarm-weapons such as semi-automatic rifles". Did Marsh criticise the timing of establishment then? During the period between the announcement and the SRS commencing operationally a period of one year had elapsed probably to develop a training program, recruit and train officers and to procure equipment. It became operational one year after the press release. If the unit had of become operational months prior to the George Floyd incident in the United States and subsequent protests, or after, this discussion would not be occurring - as Marsh stated the State Government "picked an uncomfortable moment" to unveil the SRS and it was "drawn ... into a broader conversation". What that your "valid and expressed criticism"? . The criticism was about the SAPOL not against a new unit that has not demonstrated any racism toward persons of color. It is not in Marsh's article that the SRS has demonstrated any racism toward persons of color the examples were individual cases by the SAPOL. The NZ reference needs to be put into context as NZ has a full time police the Special Tactics Group similar to STAR Group and also has the part time Armed Offenders Squad (AOS). The full time "Armed Response Teams" trial that consisted of AOS members that ended might have had some similarities to the SRS. But there is a totally different structure in NZ Police compared to SAPOL. Every NZ general duties police vehicle for several years now is equipped with two semi automatic rifles in the boot similar to the SRS rifles in addition to handguns in the car. NZ police is not comparable to SAPOL.

Your recent edition of quoting David J. Olney is contradicted by the Premier's press release in June 2019 that a "Security Response" would be established with "...enhanced tactical skills and operational equipment including longarm-weapons such as semi-automatic rifles." so there was not a "total lack of information". The second new addition by Gill Hicks adds nothing to the article - "It’s not how we live, especially in Australia, SA" - this is not notable for inclusion.--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Melbguy05: I'm going to break it down into five things; timing, racism, New Zealand, lack of information and Gill Hicks.

1. Timing: I don't know if I can have a conversation here with you if you're going to go back and edit your previous comments to strengthen your argument.

On 11:37, 25 September 2020 you said: "Marsh didn't criticise the timing of the establishment. In the introduction he states "picked an uncomfortable moment" and later that the SRS was "drawn ... into a broader conversation I don't know if Marsh criticised the SRC in 2019 - you'll have to check with him. I do know that he made valid and express criticisms of SRC in 2020 in the referenced article. You seem to be focused on your personal disagreements with Marsh's logic. "

Then after I've made it very clear that he did criticise the timing, on 13:03, 30 September 2020 you've edited your previous comment to state: "He discusses not the SRS but the SAPOL in general with mention of radical ideas like defunding and concerns of racial profiling and e criticise the timing of the establishment."

Now you're not saying that he didn't criticise the timing but he shouldn't criticise the timing. That's your personal opinion. You'll need to ask Marsh if he criticised it in 2019 as well. I know he did critise the timing in the referenced article. The timing was also criticised elsewhere, which I've added a second reference, based on another report:

"the people behind the petition labelling the timing of the implementation of the squad “tone deaf”."

I feel like I'm wasting my time breaking this down for you.

See: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NPOV&redirect=no "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

2. Racism Obviously Marsh's article didn't say that SRS has demonstrated any racism, as the article was about the launch of SRS. It did state:

"Despite attempts to distance South Australian policing from the systemic issues and unrest seen in other jurisdictions, recent accusations of racial profiling and excessive force in the arrest of a 28-year-old Aboriginal man in Kilburn, and online abuse levelled at a Sudanese Australian human rights advocate by a sworn SAPOL officer, offered a reminder that our own police are not above reproach or critique. Such context certainly was not lost on attendees at Saturday’s rally – even if the Rapid Response team ultimately did not appear to be deployed alongside the mounted and general duties officers in attendance."

And this is eccoed in other places, such as Brookers article (Security theatre in an age of anxiety) "Worse still, just days ago SAPOL officers were predictably cleared by an internal investigation after the violent arrest of an Aboriginal man, despite footage showing him being forced into the ground and restrained while an officer repeatedly punched him. Given such scenes, it’s worth asking who will be made to feel safer by the sight of SRS officers on patrol. Certainly not groups that have historically been oppressed by the police – people of colour, queer and trans folk, and so on – nor members of protest movements such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion whom it is not hard to imagine Grant Stevens had in mind when referring to ‘issue-motivated violent incidents’".

So I think it's clear that the statment on the wikipedia page is valid:

The timing of the establishment has also been criticised in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement and the killing of George Floyd just two months prior, drawing concerns about the role of the police and deadly force used against BIPOC communities.

The articles by Brooker and Marsh are "drawing concerns" about the previous hisotry of SAPOL applied to the new SRS unit in which the two articles are written about.

3. New Zealand Your criticism to no longer be about the page, but about the sources and how they differ with your opinions. When you say "The NZ reference needs to be put into context" you're refering to the content of Marsh's article not the SRS wikipedia page. If you disagree with Marsh you need to take it up with him, not argue about it here.

4. Lack of information Similarily, in reference to my addition of David J. Olney. You're saying there was not a total lack of information because of the premieres previous press release. You're disagreeing with Olneys opinion - you need to take that up with him. He is a Associate Lecturer at Adelaide University and a Senior Analyst of International Security at an independent, not-for-profit think tank SAGE International Australia, and he has said: "Total lack of information that we’ve been provided from the people who should have provided it, which is the premiere the cabinet and the police minister."

Again you may disagree with him, and you may create a logical argument for why that may be incorrect, but he has made that criticism and is a reliable source. He obviously doesn't mean literally zero information has been provided to anyone at any point, he is saying that as far as communicating significant changes in policing goes, there has been nowhere near enough communication and messaging to the public or in the media. I'm not taking the quote out of context or giving too much weight for it, Olney's criticism of the lack of information is representative of a genuine and valid criticism of the SRC.

5. Gill Hicks You've said Gill's comments are "not notable for inclusion", you'll have to expand what you mean because it's not clear to me at all. Gill Hicks is the South Australian of the year in 2014, and was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2016 "for significant service to the promotion of peace in the community through public engagement, education and network building initiatives". She was the last living victim rescued in the July 2005 London bombings. Counter terrorism is the main rationalle for the SRS, and that SAPOL used images of the London Bombing in it's promotional video for the SRS (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pXfMev32bw&feature=youtu.be 2:14). So Gill Hicks is

a) a survivor of the type of incident that SRC is intended to prevent

b) familiar with Adelaide as a resident

c) Highly respected, known and honored

d) Explicitly stated criticism of the SRS

I think that is very notible for inclusion.

Andykusama (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References