Gang hysteria hits parliament
[UPDATE-- 2:10PM:
Greens on the motivations behind Act's reversal on the gang patch bill:
The ACT Party breached its own principles of "individual freedom" when it supported the Whanganui Gang Insignia Bill in what appears to be a political deal to get ACT's Three Strikes Bill passed, Green Party MP Metiria Turei said today.
Last night on TVNZ7's political show Backbenches, Rodney Hide commented that ACT had supported the Whanganui Bill to "get Three Strikes through".
"In 2006 Mr Hide was positively sneering at Chester Borrows attempt to ban gang patches. Now it seems ACT has done a backroom deal with National, exchanging the party's own principles to advance its legislative agenda," said Mrs Turei. "The Three Strikes Bill has already had its first reading, so one can only assume that when Mr Hide says 'get Three Strikes through' he means National will support ACT in passing the Bill into law."
This is just a straight sell-out by Act - not the sort of pragmatism I would expect, frankly. Blair (in the update at the end of this post) is not the only Act member (in this case a former candidate) similarly alarmed at the illiberal swing to the conservative hard Right:
ACT candidate Lindsay Mitchell has criticised Mr Garrett and said in response to ACT's support for the Whanganui Gang Insignia Bill: "I understand that being in government comes at a price. But it's just getting too expensive for this supporter."
A report from the Attorney-General showed that Mr Garrett's Bill was inconsistent with the section of the Bill Of Rights that protects New Zealanders from cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe punishment.
Mrs Turei said ACT appears caught in a contradiction: "It seems the so-called party of personal freedom forever at war with "nanny state" now wants the Government to prescribe dress for New Zealanders. There are more effective ways to tackle crime."
Mitchell has also come out against the 3 stikes bill. She has been quite angered that longtime members like her were over-looked in favour of SST types (at least Garrett) that came ahead of them on the list--UPDATE ENDS]
NZ Herald/ZB reporting:But Act MP David Garrett says the law will make sure intimidating tattoos are covered up.
Covering up tattoos is ridiculous. Banning something only in Whanganui (but not elsewhere) is ridiculous (they would say its a pilot project), and it is ridiculous that Labour should turn tail after having
This has so many Bill of Rights (infringement of liberty) hooks - and they are obvious - that they really need no explaining. I want to focus on the potential outcomes of the law.
Garrett will have us believe that gang members now have to wear make up and bring back the lost sartorial flare of the cravat and will have to change their clothing (sans patches). Maybe he is imagining:
Try:
They can cover their tattoos up with gang colours. Or is Garrett going to ban red, blue, black, yellow and anything resembling checked/tablecloth handkerchiefs? Utterly ridiculous.
[UPDATE-- 11:30AM:
Blair, as one of Act's more vocal members is mightily unimpressed with the abandonment of Act's values of freedom and intends to raise it at conference.
I last met Blair while covering the Act election campaign launch. I got to talk to a few party people there and I offered my opinion that Garrett is there to get the support of the Sensible Sentencing Trust lobby and that they don't expect him to win and indeed don't want to see him in parliament - all they were hoping for was enough to return Sir Roger, not Garrett as well, who will bring in the conservative side that represents the opposite to Act ideology. They weren't disagreeing. Use guys like the SST for their supporters and money -
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 9:18 am
24 comments
24 Comments:
How very Daddy State.
Completely agree, utterly ridiculous and unenforceable.
Want to know the real reason they're doing it?
So in a couple of years time 'gang crime' figures will be down, obviously there will still be criminal gangs and crimes being committed but they won't be recorded as 'gang crimes' because the perps (possibly) won't be wearing gang insignia. All about the spin and PR.
I tautoko tenei tikanga. He tikanga tauiwi otira ko te timatanga o nga he o nga tangata maha, mo te wawata o aku mokopuna maha. Na reira, tenei te wa, tini o whakaaro o rukahu. E tu! Kawe a ake te wero! Tenei te wa o te ao hurihuri, ko te tuhi i te pakitara.
Get with the programme!!! Colours and patches are old skool. Its a new world. Ko tera te hiahia o nga tupuna. Work smarter not harder, keep your feet on the ground but aim for the clouds bro.
I'm all for having gang members rounded up and shot but even I thought "what about the poka dot hankies?" when I heard about the new proposals.
No one ever got pack raped by a leather jacket, its the losers who wear them that I want to see off our streets
Concentrate on getting these cock smokers into jail, not on their costumes.
Yes, gang members should be held to account for their crimes, not for being a member of a gang. In some communities gang membership, unfortunately, is more of a social inevitability rather than a considered and free choice. Because entire families are in a gang it will be viewed by them (and may be used by Police) as a form of harassment.
Getting a kid drunk and then tattooing a gang emblem on their face is bad enough without the Crown then saying that emblem alone is enough to put you in jail. It will push gang members closer together and give them a sense of grievance and solidarity - two motivating aspects that will make gangs harder not softer.
it is ridiculous that Labour should turn tail after having supported it previously when they should have booted it when it was first floated. As a knee-jerk reactionary measure from conservative demagogues like Michael bloody Laws such a draconian and stupid bill should never have been introduced.
Labour did not previously support it. It is the practise with all local bills - bills sponsored by local authorities - that they are sent to select committee. Basically, it is considered that the Wanganui City Council was democratically elected by its community and we owe them the courtesy to at least listen to their arguments.
Also, the Government doesn't have an option whether a local bill gets introduced.
Having spent much of my time last year out volunteering for ACT... I'm fucking pissed off with this.
So much for the party of freedom.
I realise that there are some costs to a coalition agreement.
I'd be happy if ACT voted for it, and in voting for it noted that they disagreed witht he law and thought it was bullshit, and were only supporting for confidence and supply.
But instead we get another brain far from Garret.
I'm expecting a hat trick of them tomorrow.
Gang Members should be labelled - if only so you can identify who is attacking you.
If say, a gang of Police set on you at night, with their dark vests, you may not realize which gang it is.
On the other hand, making Patches an issue of even more Pride and Defiance is perhaps a bit sleepy.
Graeme - I thought they could have struck it down at the first stage for stupidity. I am surprised the govt. cannot stop local bills being introduced esp. if there is BORA issues etc. - but I defer to your learned opinion on these matters.
Whanganui...how twee...
I think google says it best:
"Did you mean: Wanganui Gang Insignia Bill"
I'm intimidated by Rotary Pins and Masonic hand shakes.
I'm all for it but include the real criminals too, the ones with the white collars.
"I offered my opinion that Garrett is there to get the support of the Sensible Sentencing Trust lobby and that they don't expect him to win and indeed don't want to see him in parliament - all they were hoping for was enough to return Sir Roger, not Garrett as well, who will bring in the conservative side that represents the opposite to Act ideology. They weren't disagreeing."
Isn't that cynical using of SST and Garrett worse even that voting for a bill they don't support as a trade-off? To lie to party members about your support for their views - to the extent of putting one of that bloc's guys high on your list - is a horrible bit of cynical corruption.
Of course, if there was no 5% threshold for party's to get MP's in, then Garrett and SST could split from Act and get 1 MP in by themselves, and ACT could retain their *ideological purity* (snigger).
Graeme - I thought they could have struck it down at the first stage for stupidity. I am surprised the govt. cannot stop local bills being introduced esp. if there is BORA issues etc. - but I defer to your learned opinion on these matters.
Two matters - introduction of a bill, and sending to select committee. The Government cannot stop a local bill being "introduced", i.e. becoming a bill and getting a first reading debate (on a members' day).
The Government can stop a local bill from going to select committee, by voting against its first reading (i.e. after the first reading debate). It is the practice that it does not do this, and the Government therefore almost always (I'm sure there are exceptions, even if I don't know them) votes in favour of the first reading of a local bill.
I also note that ACT were going to support the bill to select committee, despite their opposition, but decided to go with their real views (at the time) when Labour announced they'd support select committee referral.
Had Labour voted against (and thus ACT voted would have voted for) it would still have passed first reading and the Government would have lost a vote in the House 61-60 - the bill would have gone to select committee anyway. I imagine Labour didn't want to remind everyone how precarious their position in the House was with the TPF's defection.
This happened on other occasions as well - an amendment to a parole amendment act passed with Labour support when the Government realised there were the numbers in the House to force the change on them anyway (the realisation coming after two Labour members had given speeches explaining why the move was a bad idea).
The 'h' in wanganui debate is just childish.
If Maori had a pre-colonial written language they would have a point. But they didn't, so good on Michael Laws.
New Zealand is a spelling error from Zeeland; Stewart Island has Half Moon bay and Horseshoe bay transposed and are quite happy with it; Ohai mine isn't a Maori word it's an error that looks like a Maori word and has become the name of a Town.
We're full of them, and no-one really cares too much about it.
Might sound like I'm on Laws' side. I'm not.
The very issue that some people care darely about the name. This means that it should be corrected. That people don't care is fair enough, "a rose by any other name..." and all that. We should respond to those who do care.
neat, now theyre going to go underground. great
Is there any historical record of 'Whanganui' with an 'h'? If not then there is no case to answer.
So what if there are BORA issues, the govnt can easily violate BORA via s4. It's strange of you not to know this tim.
ACT never was the party for freedom of expression or freedom of anything for that matter. When are people going to wake up to the fact that the ACT Party may as well be a modern incarnation of a certain 1940s Fascist Party?
So what if there are BORA issues, the govnt can easily violate BORA via s4. It's strange of you not to know this tim.
- I'm well aware of it and if you had read my many posts over the years you would know I am only too well aware of it! My point was that the govt. could have used that as an excuse (and a jolly good one) for not having it introduced - but I have been corrected on this by Graeme - a local bill is (treated as ?) a members bill and the govt. cannot stop its introduction and by convention does not stop it going to a select committee either.
Yes there is documented spelling of Whanganui but it fell out of favour with some through ignorance and colonial over writing of history.
a local bill is (treated as ?) a members bill and the govt. cannot stop its introduction
Kind of...
There are four basic types of bills, all of which must have a sponsor or MP in charge of them:
Government bills - these are introduced by the Leader of the House advising the clerk of an intention to introduce a bill.
Members' bills - these are introduced by a member giving notice of an intention to introduce (along with a copy of the bill) to the Clerk. Up to four members' bills can be awaiting first reading at any one time. If there are spots available, the Clerk conducts a ballot and the successful bills are introduced.
Private Bills - these are bills dealing with very specific individual circumstances. Often these will be changing a trust deed to allow a trust to do something it wasn't originally set up for (a UK example was the private bill that altered the terms of Cecil Rhodes' will to allow women to be Rhodes' Scholars); one famous example in NZ was a couple of adoptive siblings who fell in love after their parents married, who got a law passed to allow them to get married to each other. These are introduced by an MP presenting a petition to Parliament on behalf of the couple asking for a piece of legislation to be passed. Usually this will be the constituency MP (unless they are a minister, in which case they arrange someone else to do it).
Local bills are introduced after a local authority asks a local MP to introduce the bill on their behalf (another job expected of constituency members - whether they agree with the proposed law or not).
Before Private and local bills are introduced the individual or council has to publicise their intent to introduce it and let affected individuals and government departments etc. know of their intentions.
Members' days (every second Wednesday Parliament sits) might more accurately be call private and local and members' days. The private and local stuff gets done before the member's stuff.
Blair's flip flopped from ACT to National so many times a) we have lost count, b) we don't care what he says now if we did in the first instance.
To now say ACT has changed its mind and he's throwing his toys out YET again is a bit like a fat man throwing rocks in a glasshouse isn't it?
And Lindsay Mitchell sounds now like a sour old woman who can't get over the fact Garrett was on the list at muber 5 where she thought she had some divine right to be.
Boring. Move on.
I haven't flip flopped anywhere Anonymous. However, it is disturbing when a party advocates one policy, then suddenly does the opposite. Surely it is the party that is flip-flopping, not me?
I remain a member of both National and ACT BTW.
Post a Comment
<< Home