Thursday, March 05, 2009

Cover up those tats

This is an entry from Rodney Hide's blog;

Special laws for Wanganui
Posted on 20 Jul 2006

Ex-Nat, ex-NZ1ster, now Mayor of Wanganui Michael Laws' plan to ban gang patches has hit a hitch but new MP Chester Borrows and the National Party are supporting a Bill to make the wearing of gang patches illegal but only in Wanganui.

I am not making this up.

... National's Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, a former detective sergeant, says his party planned to table a bill in Parliament after police headquarters refused to endorse the bylaw [banning gang regalia in parts of the city]. "The police in Wanganui were happy with the bylaw but the office of the commissioner wanted to have parliamentary sanction. . . . Mr Borrows said the bill, supported by National, would apply only to Wanganui, but it was "a commonsense approach to a problem shared by provincial centres across the country"...

Commonsense is a wonderful guide to sound law making!



And Heather Roy on the same subject;

Real Solutions Needed To Address Gang Issue
Posted on 30 Sep 2008

The move to outlaw gangs, their patches and tattoos is nothing more than a ploy to give the appearance of action - a ploy that will yield no results or benefit to New Zealand society in the long-term struggle to deal with the country's gang problem, ACT Deputy Leader and National Security Spokesman Heather Roy said today.

"Such moves are wrongly-focussed, token-ist and entirely predictable - hard-line policies to deal with gangs are reeled out by different Parties in the run up to every election," Mrs Roy said.

"Clearly none of these 'flash in a pan' policies have worked - because they focus more on addressing the mayhem that individual gang members cause, rather than on initiatives that will hit gangs hardest and make it harder for them to operate.

"Legislation outlawing gangs and their insignia is just more law - we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have and give police the power to tackle lawlessness where and when it happens.

"Gangs' impact on society is more about their actions than their visibility. Rather than worrying about what gangs wear, we should establish a special IRD unit to audit their incomes and hit them where it hurts the most - in their wallets, rather than their wardrobes.



And in October last year, during the campaign;

Forget about banning gang patches. We need to focus on the anti-social behaviour that they represent. We already have plenty of laws to deal with that but, as a society, we appear to lack the will to enforce them. That's why the criminals are getting bolder.



This is a report from NewstalkZB today;

Anti-gang patch law moving through Parliament

05/03/2009 5:16:01

The proposal to have gang patches banned in Wanganui now looks certain to pass into law.

MPs have voted 64 to 58 in favour of the Gang Insignia Bill. Labour, which originally supported the idea, backed down and opposed it, however National received the support of ACT to allow the Gang Insignia Bill to pass through. The law would prohibit gang members wearing any patches on the streets of Wanganui.

The bill has two final readings before it comes into effect.

Green MP Metiria Turei is among those to oppose the plan, saying it will not stop gang violence. She says not only will it be ineffective, but it will also be a significant breach of citizens' rights. Ms Turei says ordinary citizens will suffer if the ban goes ahead.

But ACT MP David Garrett says the law will make sure intimidating tattoos are covered up.


I understand that being in government comes at a price. But it's just getting too expensive for this supporter.

51 comments:

Berend de Boer said...

Lindsay: The bill has two final readings before it comes into effect.

And that's the key passage. If ACT votes for the final reading, yes, then you would have a point about hypocrisy.

And if you are going to bash ACT for the next 3 years, please say so upfront, so we can all unsubscribe.

You're starting to read like The Standard in some posts, the most uncharitable interpretation, the most hostile reaction.

And that descend is a pity as you are one of the most informed and most knowledgeable contributors to the blogosphere.

David Garrett said...

I don't know where the supposed "quote" from me about gang tattoos having to be covered up under the Bill comes from - Hansard confirms it is certainly not taken from my speech in parliament yesterday.

What I DID say was that claims that the bill may lead to outlawing ta moko because of confusion with gang tattoos were simply Green Party alarmism. I said that clenched fists and snarling dogs with German helmets tattooed on faces had nothing in common with traditional Maori tattoos, and that there was no chance of them being confused.

Do you really treat whatever you hear on the radio as accurate portrayals of what was said ? I prefer to rely on Hansard.

Mark.V. said...

Banning gang patches and tattoos is an infringement of free speach. They are a statement but they do not do anything, it is the wearer who acts and should be prosecuted if he acts illegaly, whether or not he is wearing a gang patch or tattoo.

Lindsay said...

The quote is the same as the sound bite they are playing during the news.

Which tattoos you are talking about is irrelevant.

What angers me is that ACT is going to support legislation that its MPs earlier dismissed as silly and superfluous.

And I don't intend to censor my comments just because the party I find fault with is ACT, Berend.

Blair said...

David, that is not the point.

You are elected as an ACT MP. ACT stands for individualism and freedom of expression. That means I have the right to wear whatever clothing I please and get tattoos of anything I please.

You and the caucus have no mandate to go against your party's principles, and vote for this legislation against ACT policy. You have no mandate or right to deem a crime something other than that which harms other people and/or their property. ACT needs return to their policy and principles and drop their support for this legislation immediately.

Anonymous said...

Well said Lindsay & Blair.

There are hoodlums in my neighbourhood whom the police should be dealing with but are not. This sort of legislation can be characterised as out of touch political posturing at best and at worst as a deliberate attack on civil liberties with the long term objective of making the entire population scared of the police.

Dave Christian

David Garrett said...

The statement that gang patches "don't do anything..." is quite wrong.

You may not have seen the imtimidatory effects on ordinary people when they come across even one "patched up" gang member, let alone a group of them. I certainly have.

Those effects are entirely intended, and don't arise - except for those with some kind of disorder - where a group of people are wearing suits, or school uniforms, or jerseys of a particular pattern.


Free speech - like any other freedom - is constrained by the caveat that it should not infringe on other peoples rights, in this case to go about their business without being intimidated.

Political reality requires compromise. This was a caucus decision at this particular stage of the bill's progress.

MikeE said...

David,

As someone who was out there every weekend putting up hoardings to ensure YOU got into parliament. And as someone who spent most of my weeknights in Newmarket stuffing envelopes I am bitterly dissapointed in ACT supporting this legislation.

Quite why we need fashion police is simply beyond me, especially restricted to one town.

This stupid law isn't going to stop a single crime, gang members should go away for the crimes they commit, not the stupid clothing they wear.

I should be able to wear whatever I want, regardless of how offensive or intimidating it is.

Its a bit bloody rich for ACT to be banging on about freedom of expression with the EFA last year, then turn around and pass legislation which restricts it this year. Its complete and utter bullshit.

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." ~Noam Chomsky

MikeE said...

Also - its worth noting, that if Rodney's Regulatory Responsibility Bill was law - this stupid legislation wouldn't make it past it.

Will de Cleene said...

How about some truth in advertising and just rename Act NZ First?

Blair said...

One of the principles of classical liberalism is that there is no right not to be offended. The minute one is acknowledged, it starts the slippery slope to totalitarianism, and banning things simply because we don't like them.

Nobody has the right not to be offended by my clothing or my tattoos. I am sure my ACT rosette offends people too, but that is their tough shit.

If we are discussing intimidating behaviour, that is something already well covered by present legislation and bylaws.

Even if your position was right David, it is still something ACT has opposed for three years since the idea was first floated. And now we are voting for it?! That betrays a lack of principle. Normally for such an extreme "compromise", one gains something in return. I am not sure what is being gained here.

James said...

David....I have been defending you and 3 strikes around the blogs...but you give me cause to pause and ponder now....are you aware of what ACT is supposed to stand for and are you in agreement with that?


I gave Karen Bridgmen a copy of "The Liberal Tide" to give to you a few months back....did you get it? I recommend a through reading to squre yourself with the principles of classical lliberalism.The are disturbing rumbelings around asspects of what you say and do that need addressing for all our sakes.

Oswald Bastable said...

Put a bounty on anyone wearing gang patches or having a scribble-face.

THAT might actually have an effect...

The Silent Majority said...

Who knows if a "deal" was done with the Nats to support the Gang Insignia bill in return for their support of 3 strikes. But lets just say for the sake of argument it was.
This may mean;

1 If ACT don't support the gang bill then 3 strikes does not go through. Remember three strikes was one of ACT's key election pledges.
2 If ACT do support the Gang Insignia Bill, then it goes through and so does 3 Strikes.

Which is worse, having a Gang Insignia Bill for Wanganui or NOT having 3 strikes introduced?

As an ACT voter I would feel more pissed off at the latter, because it was their number one election pledge.

I guess it's all a matter of priorities.

MikeE said...

The difference - the silent majority, is that most of us are act voters because we have principles.

The ends do not justify the means.

The Silent Majority said...

I agree Mike E. The reason I worked so hard for ACT during the election, like many others, was because of the principles on which the Party is founded. But more importantly, I wanted to see ACT policies actually implemented, because we HAVE to change this country and the socialist mindset.We won't do that by ranting about the principles at dinner parties or over coffee with like minded people. That will achieve diddly squat.

But the regulatory reform and Local Government changes that Rodney will soon be implementing, THAT is change I can believe in. (Sorry, hate to quote a socialist!)

We could all just as easily quit supporting ACT because they are not always 100% true to principles, and go and join the Libertarians, but how will that actually "change the country?"

Anonymous said...

One of the hallmarks of fascist and other authoritarian societies is the removal of civil rights of some minorities because the majority (or those willing to manipulate them) disagree with their views, their behavior or their origins.

Substitute the word Jew, or Gypsy, or homosexual for Mongrel Mob and the concern of many posters becomes very easy to understand.

Mr Garret's comments about the right of the majority to suppress the right to self expression of a minority, no matter how odious that minority is, have a very nasty smell about them. They are the first steps on a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Which minority in which community will fall foul or Mr Garrett's shadowy Sensible Sentencing Trust masters next?

Anonymous said...

Once again, all of you Libertines head straight for the philosophical baubles but ignore the obvious - the disintegrating culture, the hows and whys.

David Garrett sees through the facile Libertine doctrines.

Blair said...

SM,

You are omitting the part where, yes ACT gets a three strike law, but in the process loses all credibility, all reason to exist, implements a stupid, unworkable, and (in worst case scenario) dangerous law, and then does not get to be in government or parliament again, thus not being able to implement anything else they want to do.

This is a grubby Winstonesque deal for the baubles of power. Yes it would be nice to have a three strikes law, but the cost is not just some jumped-up bylaw for Wanganui, it's what can be otherwise achieved afterwards. To accept this deal is to think only in the short term for ACT's goals, and to ensure their ultimate failure.

Anonymous said...

Shame on ACT for supporting this disgraceful law.

So much for being the "Liberal Party".

MikeE said...

Also - if this law makes sense (which it doesn't) why is it restricted to being a local law. Surely if it is just, practical and senisible, we should apply it to the whole country.

It makes no sense for it to be legal to wear an item of clothing throughout the country, and not wanganui. What makes gang members better in other parts of the country, but not in wanganui.

Berend de Boer said...

Blair, if this law is unworkable, it is just another feel good law. So what? It's not the end of the world.

People, this is the first reading, let's hear the arguments.

Many people don't feel offended, they feel THREATHENED. That's a bit different ain't it? This isn't about tattoos.

Is this law gonna work? No. Is it helpful? I doubt it. Is it the absolute end of ACT as a classical liberal party even if they vote for it at the third reading under some kind of deal? No.

I'm willing to change my mind, but convince me please.

Anonymous said...

All this is very disappointing. I was of two minds when ACT went into government. No longer. It was a mistake. They should have remained as the principled opposition. Now they make deals to satisfy the completely unprincipled National Party. The FDP in Germany didn't make this mistake when Merkel won -- they refused to join her Grand Coalition and saw their polls jump as a result.

ACT brought in Garrett (which I think was a mistake as he is not a liberal). Then they formed a govt. with National which has no principles. The net result is they are slowly compromising on issues. That is the death of ACT if it continues.

If ACT is going to make deals with National why vote for ACT instead of National. Just go to the Nats directly. I've long promoted ACT but will stop doing so and watch and wait. But no support for the time being. Maybe Rodney will wake up and realize that he knows what is right and what is best and that he isn't doing it.

Rick said...

ACT on Campus agree that our parliamentary team can use a refresher on party principles and we'll be putting one together at once!

Cactus Kate said...

Sorry but - who the fuck cares?

This sort of wailing is the very reason that ACT has been held back and splintered for so long....members who are puritanical about their beliefs without seeing the greater good which is now ACT is in government and can make a difference but in order to do that has to run counter to what some individual members may be thinking.

Blair says: "ACT stands for individualism and freedom of expression". Well to Blair it might but to me it means low tax, good economic policy and strict law and order and after years in opposition finally being able to get some of its policies recognised.

Now lets focus on the real issues, like putting gang members behind bars not giving the degenerates the right to wear a bloody gang patch.

3 strikes is more important than getting all upset over a law covering tats and gang patches.

Another real issue - the economic crisis and National intent on pouring and pissing good money down a dark hole.

Focus. If only you all would get so worked up over that.

James said...

Sorry Cactus but you are way wrong here.Without a principled base ACT is a dead man walking.I, and others agree that getting ACT's policies through is the holy grail but...not at any price...especially the selling of our souls and principles.We risk becoming NZ First.


"This sort of wailing is the very reason that ACT has been held back and splintered for so long....members who are puritanical about their beliefs without seeing the greater good which is now ACT is in government and can make a difference but in order to do that has to run counter to what some individual members may be thinking."

The "greater good"?!...when did YOU sell out to socialism?



"Blair says: "ACT stands for individualism and freedom of expression". Well to Blair it might but to me it means low tax, good economic policy and strict law and order and after years in opposition finally being able to get some of its policies recognised."

At what cost? The slow elimination of freedom in NZ? supporting the authoritarian policies of Labour-lite gets you to the same place as suporting the real deal...just a bit slower...no thanks.There is no reason for conflict between Blairs stance and what you want....but in abny compromise between what you know to be the good and what you know to be the evil its only the evil that gains from the deal.Chipping away at the principled foundations of ACT ensures ACT will fall.

"Now lets focus on the real issues, like putting gang members behind bars not giving the degenerates the right to wear a bloody gang patch."

And there you lose any right to claim to be a liberal....again there is no reason the goal of the first part of your sentence needs to involve the restriction implied in the second part.


From someone who's opinion I greatly respect...as does Rodney.

..."The entire thing is stupid, it is a compromise over something that is unimportant, does nothing of value, and is counterproductive. I'm disappointed but this is precisely what to expect when they become part of the government -- they are forced to compromise. Worse they are trading bad legislation for more bad legislation. It is a lose-lose situation.


And this stupidly gives the gangs power to determine what is legal or illegal as a symbol. If they adopt the symbol it is illegal. I suggest the gangs adopt the cross as a symbol and then lets see if they bust people for wearing crosses and close down churches as gang centres.


The idea that a symbol could be illegal is absurd. I would find out what those symbols are and wear them to the ACT meeting, not because one supports the gang but because one still believes in freedom of speech.


Ask them if the law applies to all future symbols adopted by the gang. If so does that mean the gang can outlaw symbols by announcing them as their new symbol. The gives the gangs the power to legislate other people's freedom to use symbols. It does it in a round-about way but it does it. All the gang need do is adopt a symbol they want banned as their own and then the government will do the gang's work for them.


I really hope a gang announces that they have adopted crosses as their symbol and the police bust a few grannies on their way to mass with rosaries for violating the law.


ACT should not have gone into government especially when National made it clear that they would use ACT against the Maori Party and the Maori Party against ACT. I think that decision, more than any other, will be the one that destroys ACT long term.


I will remain loyal to Rodney as a friend but that doesn't mean I won't be disappointed."....


Says it all really.

James said...

As an atheist Im not one to quote the Bible too often but this question strikes at the heart of this debate and ACT's continued existence..

"What Shall It Profit A Man To Gain The Whole World And Lose His Soul"


Indeed.

Lindsay said...

"Sorry but - who the fuck cares?"

I care. I care about where seemingly inconsequential things (in your eyes) will take us in the years to come.

There are age-old principles at stake here. Not just with this piece of wankery. The compulsory DNA testing, the on-the-spot protection orders, arbitrary sentencing. Just how much power are you going to hand over to the state before you start getting just a little bit tetchy about it Cactus? Ask Rick G what it feels like to be rounded up and detained for no good reason.

Concede these and what will be next? Change is happening all the time. It can't be stopped. That is why it is fundamentally important that the nature of change is towards freedom and not away from it. NZ already has all the laws it needs. We can't simply substitute common-sense, or a will to enforce them, with more.

But if ACT represents your priorities, then good for you.

Cactus Kate said...

"Without a principled base ACT is a dead man walking"

Another fallacy of the politically naive. National and Labour have lived on for decades without being principled.

On any scale ACT is still more principled than any other party.

- advocates lower taxes
- advocates removing waste in government and government expenditure
- advocates tougher sentencing and controls of criminals

Good enough for me.

"Greater good" is ACT in government and getting through legislation it wants. But you knew that.

Rick G was detained for failing the basic intelligence test of having a valid visa while in the US or while travelling in general. I don't see how that is relevant. Lindsay, bad call on the "what's next" front, remember I live in Hong Kong which has removed plenty of your supposed "liberalness". We have very little crime, I don't have to look at big bloody gang patches all day and gang banging fucktards and best of all I pay half your GST rate in income tax.

I've never described myself as a social liberal anyway from memory.

But all of you can keep on labelling each other to see who is the "most liberal". You should have an awards dinner to find "Social Liberal of the Year".

You can do that from the opposition benches or from a political party that meets your definition of "more liberal".

Oh that's right.....there still isn't one. Well there is the Libertarianz but they will be too principled to accept your membership fee.

Lindsay said...

Cactus, You replaced principles with policy.

The relevance of Rick G's experience is to the point I was making about the gradual concession of power to the state. I don't want NZ to become the same sort of police state as the US. Yes we have gangs (though I rarely see a member) but our crime rate is nowhere near the state's. And there are better approaches to dealing with the gangs than this twaddle.

But I am not quite sure what we are fighting for. As I said, the party satisfies you. I am not going to fight to change it.

Anonymous said...

National does exist without principles. But that doesn't mean a minor party can survive easily doing the same. If I didn't care about principles, like Kate, then why would I care about ACT not having principles. If I was voting without principles I'd vote National or Labour. In unprincipled politics the only justification for small parties is their principles. Otherwise why bother with them?

James said...

Good point anon....if ACT basically becomes National lite what s the f@@ken opoint of its existance?

ACT's power is that it ISN"T National and CAN disent from bigger brothers plan....as soon as ACT loses its distictivness from National its all over....think Labour and Jim Anderton.

"Another fallacy of the politically naive."

As noted by the factually evasive?

"National and Labour have lived on for decades without being principled."

And they are virtually interchangable....the spark,the newness,the intrest come from the minor partys like ACT and the Greens.....Nats/Lab....? Who cares?

"In unprincipled politics the only justification for small parties is their principles. Otherwise why bother with them?"

Exactly....!There is far more cudos and respect for ACT in opposing this piece of bad law bullshit than there is in supporting it.

ACT have forever tarnished the one thing they had going for them....a principled basis for policy....now they are no better than any other party.

Cactus Kate said...

What you all fail to miss is this law while stupid, is just not important. If it can't work then it won't work so who cares?

You all talk about principles but I bet if you were all in a room right now you would find that even though you are ACT supporters you all have different ones and couldn't agree on who makes coffee.

Once again ACT's purpose in this government is that it

- advocates lower taxes
- advocates removing waste in government and government expenditure
- advocates tougher sentencing and controls of criminals

These three issues keep it principled and distinct from National because the National Party will sell out over tax cuts, tougher sentencing and they would have an even larger bureaucracy than Labour if they could get away with it so their mates have cushy jobs.

libertyscott said...

Anyone who thinks banning the wearing of gang patches will make a material difference to crime is naive. It is a diversion from the Police being properly resourced to do their job and not be diverted onto victimless crimes.

Anyone who thinks that banning what people wear in public isn't a disturbing step towards Nanny State, doesn't deserve to be in ACT.

David, you said "I said that clenched fists and snarling dogs with German helmets tattooed on faces had nothing in common with traditional Maori tattoos, and that there was no chance of them being confused." which implies you want people banned from wearing certain tattoos in public places - which of course begs the question, how are they meant to go to work, get them removed or indeed just go about their business peacefully?

Hooded youths can be intimidating, when does this end?

People can ban people doing anything on private property - that would be a nice start to assert. Shops could ban gang patches en masse.

Manolo said...

"What you all fail to miss is this law while stupid, is just not important."

Cactus' flexibility to go with the flow is amazing, but not convincingly enough. Principles matter and ACT has betrayed them for the sake of going along with the spineless National Party.

It reminds me of the baubles of power once offered, and happily grabbed by the venal Winston Peters.

B Whitehead said...

It's enough to make you vote Libertarianz..

Blair said...

If principles mean so little to Cathy I am not sure why she doesn't just leave ACT and join National.

Rick said...

Personal freedom isn't aesthetic to political freedom, it's mixed with it and anterior to it. Statism is firmly lodged in the brains of nearly all of us from childhood. The economic freedom Cactus wants will never be practised nor suffered to be practised without the ideals ACT was formed to champion.

Not just abstract either. People who don't believe in rights are talking about YOUR rights. Cactus, you're basically ticking the box that says what put me in US jail for five weeks was okay. That tells me all I need to know about you.

Sorry you're not up for putting some wind in libertarian ACT's sails, Lindsay. A good number of us are regretting letting the side down to the disadvantage of liberal sentiments. Should be a good AGM this weekend.

Richard McGrath said...

David (Garrett): Every few weeks I wear a badge with gang insignia that identifies me as a member of the local chapter. About thirty of us meet every second Tuesday night at gang HQ where many of us are sold an intoxicating drug to have with our dinner. Will I have to remove my Lions club badge if I attend a club event in Wanganui?

sean fitzpatrick said...

"Turn to the Dark Side - we have cookies!"

Don't worry Lindsay - you and the more principled ACT-oids will always be welcome over here with us Libz. Next time Im in Eastbourne we should catch up at The Beach for a coffee.

Cactus, darling, I know how you feel about the gang-bangers in their silly attire. Myself I am quite happy for them to so identify themselves in advance so I know who to keep an eye on. Fact is a lot of people may find my usual attire of jeans and leather jacket snug apon my muscled frame somewhat intimidating as well and one does not want to be lumped in with the like of the Monggies.

More biccies - less government.

twr said...

Act seems to have given up on it's most compelling policy tagline in recent years, namely "Freedom, choice, and personal responsibility". There's no point being in government if they can't stick to that basic prescription, and I for one am disappointed with their support for ridiculous legislation like this and the DNA sampling bill.

I'm with Blair and Mike on this, and I certainly won't be donating more money, delivering thousands of leaflets, and putting up billboards for the next campaign if this continues.

Sally O'Brien said...

ACT - The Association of Compulsion Touters?

A good set of priciples will be consistant with each other.

Re:
"On any scale ACT is still more principled than any other party.
- advocates lower taxes
- advocates removing waste in government and government expenditure
- advocates tougher sentencing and controls of criminals"

Banning patches along with the costs of policing and enforcement detracts from all of these principles. As has been well argued here, anything other than focusing on real criminal behaviour would be a waste of resources and and therefor taxes would be higher than necessary." Allowing freedom of expression is not the same thing as allowing criminal behaviour. The police need to know the difference and focus on using only retaliatory force not only because they risk infringing on freedom of expression but also they risk wasting resources. Also if you want the population to respect the tree strikes idea then you had better have the police properly focussed or you will have a lurch to the liberal left next election.

davidinnz said...

I'm only asking questions:

A pack of Pacific Island rugby forwards, when not smiling, can be very intimidating, with or without tattoos. Would you ban them from congregating? How would they be allowed to play rugby?

A group of skinheads in boots and Nazi jackets can be intimidating. Are they banned? From what?

A group of white supremacists wearing Ku Klux Klan hooded robes can be intimidating. Are they banned?

A group of Harley Davidson Owners Club riders in leathers, matt black helmets and riding noisy motorcycles can be intimidating (even though many of them are middle-aged, middle-class white men). Are they banned?

James said...

ACT mp's are listening....one has been in touch to say the caucus had been discussing this "issue" at lenght....expect enlightenment at the AGM....

PS....do you think this was a planned stunt to ensure a good turn out in a non election year?

;-)

PPS.....Turn up Lindsay....you can play the Titiwhai Harawera role...;-0

Mr Dennis said...

This gang patches law is not only unprincipled, it makes life a lot harder for the police. Currently the gang members make policing easy by wearing nice uniforms saying in effect "Check me, I probably did it". If they are forced to wear civilian clothes, crime fighting will be far harder.

I find it very reassuring to know that NZ's gang members are polite enough to wear uniforms identifying themselves.

Don't force them into disguise.

davidinnz said...

Another random question:

How did David Garrett get on the ACT list? (I don't remember him or his credentials in the list of candidates wishing to stand for ACT.)

Andy Moore said...

It's a disgrace to ACT's founding principles. Good on you Lindsay for speaking against it. As for the likes of the first commenter, or the people talking about "necessary compromise", that's bollocks, and they are showing that they don't have much of a set of principles.

Anonymous said...

Gang members, Criminals, Unionists, Labourists are simply not entitled to any civil rights whatsoever - the BORA should not apply to such people who may be genetically "homo sapiens" but are simply not human beings by any reasonable definition of the same.

That's it. ACT Is about Consumers and Taxpayers. ACT's principles are simple: support consumers and taxpayers and go after beneficiaries, bludgers, ciminals, gangsters, labourites, unionists, and all other corrupt, intimidating, taxing, regulating, structures from society.

That is a real principle: and both the gang patch bill and the three strikes bill are in absolute accord with that principle.

Similarly - a bill with enshrined that criminals, beneficiaries, unionists, and labourists did not have any civil rights, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression etc are completely in line with those principles. As would the SST's reintroduction of the death penalty (which ACT will certainly support when the time comes); permitting the carriage and use of firearms; and removing any criminal or civil sanctions when good upstanding citizens, consumers, and taxpayers use those firearms against gangsters, criminals, unionists and labour party members.

davidinnz said...

Come off it, Anon. Why not add Jews, blacks, disabled, mentally ill, Exclusive Brethren... to your list?

That's called discrimination.

Real humans don't do that anymore.

James said...

That's called discrimination.

Real humans don't do that anymore."

But they still have the natural right to do so....thats the right to liberty and property...the right to make wrong decisions and poor personal choices...including wearing clothing that "offends" some people...ACT must stand up and defend those rights if its to remain principled.Once it looses that status its dead and its time to fold the tent.

Anonymous said...

'the BORA should not apply to such people who may be genetically "homo sapiens" but are simply not human beings by any reasonable definition of the same.'

Some criminals in 20 & 30's Germany used to say exactly the same. Shame on you!