This morning we learned that Foreign Affairs has advised that the three strikes law could breach UN mandated obligations regarding civil rights. Leave it for the select committee. That's what Simon Power said. I didn't think the issue was worth blogging about. However.....
Garrett has now issued a release saying the claims are 'completely laughable'.
"This is especially so when you consider that a leading member of the UN Human Rights Council is Saudi Arabia - a country notorious for severe oppression of political and religious minorities, homosexuals, and women," Mr Garrett said.
"In Saudi Arabia court-sanctioned amputations and brutal lashings are a common form of punishment for petty crimes; public execution by beheading can be expected for those convicted of armed robbery or homosexuality.
"Meanwhile, homosexuals in nearby Qatar - another Council member - get off quite lightly by receiving only a five-year prison sentence for homosexual sex between consenting adults. Not surprisingly, capital punishment is still common - with the death penalty being handed down to those convicted of abandoning and renouncing Islam.
"On the flipside, New Zealand is a liberal and progressive nation by any measure. Why then, should we be expected to pay any attention whatsoever to covenants set down by barbaric regimes like those of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Council members?" Mr Garrett said.
He would know about where the death penalty is still common having researched and written an entire book arguing that New Zealand should re-instate the death penalty.New Zealand, of course, wouldn't be a 'barbaric regime' for imposing the death penalty because it would only apply to murderers, by Mr Garrett's prescription. We would still be a liberal and progressive nation.
Come to think of it, Mr Garrett is normally heard denigrating 'liberal' and 'progressive' thinking. Perhaps he has had some sort of conversion. I hope so.
11 comments:
Although I agree with what he said in this case, personally I would have liked his press release to "play the ball rather than the man" and look at the specific issues that were outlined, whether in fact the bill violates them, and if so - whether they is actually substance to them.
Rather than just attacking the council because all its members are nuts.
"Mr Garrett is normally heard denigrating 'liberal' and 'progressive' thinking."
Well if so, I 'd guess in a different context.
Maybe though you could give an example of when you had heard him say such a thing, so I could judge for myself.
Well I think - once again - that ACT should make reinstatement not only its policy but insist on it for confidence and supply.
And unlike the US, with long drawn-out liberal appeals processes, anyone found guilty of murder, or with a death sentence imposed for lesser crimes, that penalty should be imposed within a week with no appeal.
And - frankly - we have a great list of when it should be applied: for murder, rape, home invasion - and instead of Garrett's third strike
Yes- Bain would be dead. So what. So would many more threats to NZ's civil society. And many many more hardworking, nonbludging Kiwis would be living in peace and freedom - and not paying hundreds of thousands per year to keep a prison system running.
It appears to me that if one is going to discuss sane and human policies that one doesn't use Saudi Arabia as the benchmark by which we should be compared.
I would note that Anonymous #1 wants the state in the killing business. He wants the state to kill within one week with no appeals. Hey, that would save all that compensation for people convicted of murder later found to be innocent, years after they were sitting on death row. In this authoritarian utopia all those innocent would be dead and out the way.
David wrote the book ten years ago....he talked about it with me and Gary Mallet at the AGM....he hasn't thought that way for years.
Finally NZ has a pollie willing to say and do what the people have been wanting for years.....and that scares the crap out of the crim lovers out there....and there are so many..
I dare say Anonymous #1 would have a completely different idea if they were falsely convicted of murder. But it wouldn't matter, as they'd only have a week to complain then we wouldn't have to listen to them any more...
If NZ was to reintroduce the death penalty, it could be done with very strict conditions, such as requiring two witnesses. That would mean Bain could never get the death penalty as his case is questionable, but David Gray would have got it had he not been shot at the scene.
But in reality there is no chance of NZ reintroducing the death penalty in the current political environment, even if ACT adopted it they wouldn't have the votes to get it through, so Anonymous #1 is quite safe if they get accused of murder.
"But in reality there is no chance of NZ reintroducing the death penalty in the current political environment,"
Don't mistake the Progressive academia and equally Progressive mainstream media for the voice of the middle class.
There's plenty of support out there for the death penalty amongst real NZers who have been victims of crime and fed up to the teeth with being ruled by a junta of elitist ivory tower socialist arseholes.
PS: No answer to my request I see.
I want to see the death penalty but only in 'smoking gun' cases.
Incontrovertible evidence like video, dna or multiple witnesses of good character.
The only reason I don't believe in the death penalty is that the police have 'got it wrong' too many times. At least if they are still alive you have the opportunity of righting the wrong.
That's why you'd have to just have it for "smoking gun" cases Lucy - where there is absolutely no doubt who did it. I'm sure you can think of some examples.
Post a Comment