Sunday, September 19, 2010

On Garrett

Michael Laws has put the Garrett business into perspective perfectly, and prompted me to give it a shot.

Garrett did a very stupid, calculated and deliberate thing as a young man. He is rough-edged still, and a risk-taker. But above all he is now a victim. And in a world where victimhood is the bleat on too many people's lips I don't use the word lightly.

He is a victim of the media. Last week the NZ Herald actually asked for any reader who knew more about the passport incident OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT DAVID GARRETT to contact them. This kind of scrutiny is going to keep real people out of politics. I've made many a mistake over my life but am in a better headspace for them. A drink driving conviction I received in 1985 wouldn't have been much material to prosecute and persecute given there are current and ex-parliamentarians (and media) who have received much more recent convictions for the same. Put in context though drinking and driving has the potential to cause more physical harm than stealing a dead baby's identity.

Worse, Garrett is a victim of a culture of backstabbing in ACT which is utterly abhorrent. I never liked the law and order mantle ACT donned (and didn't put up any pertinent campaign signs in 2008). To me three strikes is authoritarian; prisons create career criminals out of young men and, regarding other legislation, too much power is being invested in the police. However these are matters to debate and Garrett and I did come to blows over them in the ensuing months. But to dislike someone's ideas and actions (or allegiances) to the point where you want to destroy them personally, is revolting.

And that is what ACT has come to. It's like watching a murder-suicide with Garrett playing a bit-part of sacrificial lamb.

11 comments:

toad said...

Lindsay, I think you are missing the point. The issue with Garrett is hypocrisy. He railed against name suppression, but took advantage of it himself.

If he had fronted up before or even immediately after he was elected and come clean and said he had learned from his mistakes he would have gained some respect.

But it also appears he didn't tell the full story - he claimed no previous criminal convictions when he received the discharge with out conviction, when he actually had the assault conviction from Tonga.

Other MPs, like John Tamihere, Sue Bradford, and now Steven Joyce (albeit belatedly, given they were careless driving convictions and he is Transport Minister) have been up front about their past brushes with the law.

Garrett wasn't. He went to great lengths to keep them hidden from public view, and the ACT board and caucus were complicit in that.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Toad, we each have our own pick for what "the point" is in this sorry saga. I wouldn't deny hypocrisy is up there. But the venal behaviour of those prepared to hang Garrett for their own purposes trumps it for me. Tht they continue to operate inside ACT is the nail in the coffin for me.

ZenTiger said...

He went to great lengths to keep them hidden from public view

You mean he respected that the case was under name suppression by saying nothing to the public?

Because if he had, you bet the angle would be that he has broken name suppression at the expense of the family that did not want to have the death of that baby 48 years ago mentioned again in the papers?

But it also appears he didn't tell the full story - he claimed no previous criminal convictions when he received the discharge with out conviction, when he actually had the assault conviction from Tonga.

Ah, but now you aren't telling the full story about that particular assault conviction.

Anonymous said...

Toad, as I understand it the ACT Board didn't know. Please desist in repeating that lie. The caucus knew, which included Heather Roy, and they thought like Rodney, that it was 26yrs ago and unlikely to be of much relevance. That was a misjudgment, but it is simply an error, and not a cover-up.

Nick K

Anonymous said...

Ah, but now you aren't telling the full story about that particular assault conviction.

So what. Grow up. Garrett has a Tongan conviction. He wants to appeal. He says he's innocent. Big deal. He has a Tongan conviction

... 26yrs ago

He had that conviction in 2005 when he lied to the court about it. 2005 isn't 26 years ago, it is 5 years,
only 3 years before he entered parliament.

Garrett refused to applaud Helen leaving parliament because he though she should have been arrested, jailed, and ideally executed.

Garret isn't asking for any favours or any quarter.
He doesn't want any, certainly not from liberals, leftists, and the MSM!

As Bill Bennet said: In another era David Garrett's friends would have handed him a revolver and hoped he did the right thing.

Or Michael Cullen: If you get into the gutter you expect to get kicked

Anonymous said...

And Wikipedia says: "formerly a member of the Socialist Unity Party and a Labour Party activist"

Rodney really, really, needs to Please Explain why Garrett was in ACT in the first place.

James said...

Ahhh so Garrett got up to his misdeeds while a socialist Labour supporter....?

Oh how this can be spun back on the vultures.

"Starts out as a crim on the left and is redemined on the right....;-)

Anonymous said...

"Starts out as a crim on the left and is redemined on the right....;-)


like I said: Rodney really, really, needs to explain how a criminal communist activist was parachuted in to stand for ACT.

Anonymous said...

And here's the real question: How many other SWP "Activists" (Terrorists) applied for false passports in the early 1980s?

baxter said...

TOAD said,"But it also appears he didn't tell the full story - he claimed no previous criminal convictions when he received the discharge with out conviction, when he actually had the assault conviction from Tonga."

Not so,it would have been the Police Prosecutor who stated that he had no previous convictions acting on information from the Police Computor which would have no record of the foreign conviction. Perhaps Garret or his mouthpiece could have disputed the fact presented by the prosecutor but I have yet to meet the defendant or lawyer who would do so.

Cactus Kate said...

"Garrett is hypocrisy. He railed against name suppression, but took advantage of it himself".

Nonsense. He was the one who applied to lift his own suppression to his own detriment as it was then discovered that he had potentially mislead the court with the affidavit - by far his greatest sin and why he had to leave the party. As it was suppressed all these years, the content of the offending affidavit could not have been known to anyone, and Garrett appeared to have forgotten about it.

Nice post Lindsay.