The ALP Queensland Government is in turmoil after it was discovered new MP Billy Gordon has a long criminal history.
In a public statement on Friday, Gordon disclosed that over the past thirty years he has been charged and convicted with breaking and entering, breach of probation, public nuisance and breach of bail conditions. Gordon has also had his license suspended, had an Apprehended Violence Order placed against him and is currently under investigation for allegations of domestic violence.
This information was acted on swiftly by the Government, with Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk sacking Gordon from the ALP and calling on him to resign from Parliament. With others making similar calls it seems likely Gordon wont last long in his role.
I, however, take a different view. Gordon’s past crimes should not disqualify from office and current allegations must be dealt with by our justice system before he is forced to move.
Let’s be clear what is happening. The moves by the Government effectively amount to stating that having a criminal history, or any allegations against you, denies you the right to be a member of Parliament. This is not the first time this has happened. People with a criminal history struggle to make it in politics and even those who have committed errors of judgement — i.e. dipping one’s penis in a glass of wine or writing a letter of recommendation for someone who ended up being a terrorist — have lost their jobs. Our society is completely unforgiving for those who have made mistakes in the past.
While we may say that in the case of Gordon, who has so many convictions, that this is completely justified, it sets up a very dangerous precedent. Our justice system is designed to allow courts to decide on punishments for those who have committed crimes. These punishments should be designed in part to ‘rehabilitate’ offenders so they can participate in society as a full citizen when the punishment is over.
What Gordon’s case shows, however, is that we’re moving beyond this. People are no longer punished just once for a crime, but for the rest of their lives. This can occur through the blocking of someone’s right to be in Parliament to the denial of jobs, services and other rights.
Let’s think about the ramifications. What this says is that if you have committed a crime there is no opportunity for redemption. It will follow you for the rest of your life. If that is the case, I ask, what motivation is there for someone to reform? What motivation is there to pursue a better life?
Worse than that, this approach denies large swathes of our community the right to representation. Look at our indigenous community in particular. Due to ingrained systematic racism, indigenous people have particularly high incarceration rates. We have built a generation of indigenous people who have moved through the prison system. And now, to add insult to racist injury, we are denying these people the right of representation. We are further disenfranchising those who are already disenfranchised.
Let’s deal with the other two major issues in Gordon’s case. The first is the current allegations of domestic violence. While any allegations of this matter must be taken seriously we our justice system is based on the idea of innocent until proven guilty. While we may want to judge Gordon therefore it is our duty to let the system do that instead (there are of course questions that need to be asked at our effectiveness of the system in doing this in relation to domestic violence). If he is found to be guilty then there would be reason for him to resign, but up until that point we must hold back.
Second, many are angry Gordon did not release this information before the election. We must ask, though, why do we need to know? I would consider, particularly given the relatively minor nature of Gordon’s convictions, that his past is irrelevant to his capabilities to serve as an MP. What is more important is the person Gordon is today. But I also ask do we really blame Gordon from not disclosing these facts? Given the reaction he’s faced I surely would have hidden this history, too. If he had revealed this before the election there is no chance he would have gotten preselection. It seems to me that Gordon just wanted to get on with his life and it is clear revealing his past would have denied him that right.
In his public statement Billy Gordon stated that “… from this troubled and fractured past I've managed to piece together a positive and constructive life.” It’s really easy to judge Gordon for his past, and for the allegations facing him now.
But in a society that is supposed to be based around a fair justice system, where we want people to be able to redeem themselves for past acts it is our job to hold back. With a society based on innocent until proven guilty, we should not judge him until the justice system has had the opportunity to do so.
Until then he has the right to stay in the seat he was elected to.
Simon Copland is a freelance writer and climate campaigner. He is a regular columnist for the Sydney Star Observer and blogs at The Moonbat.
Share
