Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.
(that's me trying to appear clever :))
...now, without trying to appear overly dramatic, this is the treatment I received when I went to have my driver's license renewed recently. I'll divulge a little into the specifics of this story, and then relate it to the subject of this post.
So. Boring details aside, I needed to obtain a Sydney State license having a Tasmanian State license. Now from my conversation with the person working for the roads authority, I came to understand that she could not issue the licence to me then, because, they did not have proof that I had not lost my Tasmanian license due to negligence etc. Consequently, they would have to send off a fax to Tasmania to receive details of my driving record, and I would have to come back later. Damn it. I had my passport with me, and asked if it would help matters if I could prove to her that I was not in the Australia for the period in question, and consequently could not have committed any driving offence. (...well, at least that they would know of, as I was driving overseas...)
Anyway, point is, they did get a fax from Tassie 'clearing my name', I did come back later, and she did issue me a NSW license... but, after a little reflection, I realised that I was treated as someone who had committed an offence. And proof was required to state otherwise. Not the other way around.
Innocent, until proven guilty: A concept that we are (in the Western world) brought up with, and consider our fundamental right.
However, while this idea may be played out in courts, or at least portrayed as such, on an everyday level we are facing the complete opposite treatment. In interactions with government agencies (particularly!) we are frequently asked to present papers, documents (signed by JPs, lawyers and others...) that provide 'proof' of our intention, condition, statements. I'm not blind to the fact that this method of approach has grown out of necessity, as there are people that lie, steal and cheat, however, I like to also think that these are not actions of the majority. And yet, we, the majority pay for it, with our time, energy, and resources.
Is it correct to observe that the fundamental fibres/protocol for officially interacting with each other, and various agencies, are actually based on the very opposite premise? Namely, that you are guilty, until proven innocent?
(that's me trying to appear clever :))
...now, without trying to appear overly dramatic, this is the treatment I received when I went to have my driver's license renewed recently. I'll divulge a little into the specifics of this story, and then relate it to the subject of this post.
So. Boring details aside, I needed to obtain a Sydney State license having a Tasmanian State license. Now from my conversation with the person working for the roads authority, I came to understand that she could not issue the licence to me then, because, they did not have proof that I had not lost my Tasmanian license due to negligence etc. Consequently, they would have to send off a fax to Tasmania to receive details of my driving record, and I would have to come back later. Damn it. I had my passport with me, and asked if it would help matters if I could prove to her that I was not in the Australia for the period in question, and consequently could not have committed any driving offence. (...well, at least that they would know of, as I was driving overseas...)
Anyway, point is, they did get a fax from Tassie 'clearing my name', I did come back later, and she did issue me a NSW license... but, after a little reflection, I realised that I was treated as someone who had committed an offence. And proof was required to state otherwise. Not the other way around.
Innocent, until proven guilty: A concept that we are (in the Western world) brought up with, and consider our fundamental right.
However, while this idea may be played out in courts, or at least portrayed as such, on an everyday level we are facing the complete opposite treatment. In interactions with government agencies (particularly!) we are frequently asked to present papers, documents (signed by JPs, lawyers and others...) that provide 'proof' of our intention, condition, statements. I'm not blind to the fact that this method of approach has grown out of necessity, as there are people that lie, steal and cheat, however, I like to also think that these are not actions of the majority. And yet, we, the majority pay for it, with our time, energy, and resources.
Is it correct to observe that the fundamental fibres/protocol for officially interacting with each other, and various agencies, are actually based on the very opposite premise? Namely, that you are guilty, until proven innocent?
No comments:
Post a Comment