Better dressed gangs
It looks like, with an election campaign now officially underway, the government is more open to copying South Australia and considering banning gangs. There are fairly limited details about which gangs it might choose ban although the implication is that they are the browner variety with patches, rather than the whiter ones that sail yachts. (All Blacks and Warriors excepted of course).
This is probably done in the belief that if you ban people from clustering together in groups and wearing similar clothes you will turn them into law abiding citizens.(?)
Interestingly the goal of the South Australian gang ban, which Corrections Minister Phil Goff may favour, seems merely to shuffle the bikie gangs along to another state.
Mr Atkinson said the new laws were a clear message that those people were not welcome in South Australia.
“They should either leave their gangs or leave the state. We will pursue them until they do,” he said.
I bet that’s making SA popular with other states. Anyway that’s an option New Zealand doesn’t really have unless we set up free ferry trip to New South Wales. And that’s a plan I imagine Australia may not be so keen on.
I’m interested to know what happens in South Australia if a gang decides to disband, start wearing non identifiable clothing and then the former gang members hang out together, just as friends. Is this just a clothing ban, or are we talking about the full, civil liberty impinging, exclusion from society type ban?
September 15th, 2008 at 10:16 am
It’s not that hard, really.
If you’ve got a group of people who frequently break the law, then slap them with a non-association order. If they associate, lock them up for a long time. If they aren’t breaking the law, then they can form whatever gang they like.
Problem solved.
Mind you, this announcement is just empty election talk from the Labour empty heads. They will, of course, do nothing.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Yep, lets care more about the gangs than the people they terrorize.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:37 am
BP might be on to something.
What’s a gang anyone?
September 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Big Bro, Blue Peter … so, opposed to the anti gang legislation then?
BP: is there such a mechanism in NZ currently as the non-association order you suggest? I suppose if you legally declare non-association between two people, then set up a police tail on one of them, then you might get them.
Perhaps we should slap one on you and Big Bro? (sorry, couldn’t resist that one too easy :))
September 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
What serious crime have I, or those known to me, committed in the past?
Therein lies the difference….
Perhaps y’all need to take a lead from the US and Italy and asked them how they broke the Mafia. Just a thought….
September 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Is the mafia broken? Has anyone told them?
September 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
You have to focus on the crime gangs commit, not the gangs themselves. Targeting gangs directly will make them more attractive - groups prosper under persecution. For example, the Christian Church is expanding rapidly in China, despite (or perhaps because of) heavy persecution.
As a solution to Sergeant Wilkinson’s shooting, I expect Labour will propose
- Banning gangs
- Restricting air rifles so you need a firearms licence
Neither of which would do any good. They won’t propose strengthening families (drying up the gangs source of new recruits of fatherless teenage boys looking for male role models and solidarity), or a change in police procedures so they are always armed when investigating gang houses, both of which would actually work but aren’t the sort of quick slogan-type policies that they want for the election.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Mr Dennis: Yes, the factors you cite are important, but “strengthening families” sounds like a massive yet empty platitude to me…expand?
September 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Numerically, the Christian Church would be considered quite a big gang here in NZ too I guess Mr Dennis?
September 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Strengthening families (tui anyone)?
how about strengthening the NZ family - instead of treating so many of us like black sheep and 3rd class citizens (crims who arent actually crims -know wot i mean?????)…
“Groups prosper under persecution” - true, look at the 373,000 cannabis consumers in NZ. and thats likely to ‘under-reported’ by half too, after all it is from that idiot analyis by BERL (prohib…er, Drug Harm Index)
yes, Mr Dennis - especially when there are massive black market profit incentives, gangs thrive too….and when (really quite understandable) alienation makes the gang-family a default position for the underclass.
hatred of police thrives too (blue nasties being largest gang in the country some say)…
another example Mr Dennis would be the insurgency in Afghanastan which corresponds with bigger than ever opium production…
hte problem is the War on Drugs - we have one here in NZ too u know. a failed one - worse, a counter-productive one.
and IN NZ we live under the shadow of gangs, crime, violence and disrespect for laws too, because they are a product of prohibition (just like int he old days of al capone): see:
why is the rest of nz (excepting alcp and libz) pretending that prohibition did not kill the officer last week.
Prohibition killed sgnt Wilkinson: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0809/S00171.htm
and libz who to their credit have a similarly truthful analysis and i see too have a transitional drug policy they are not scared to talk about…Libertarianz Laments Another Drug War Casualty
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0809/S00177.htm
dont make the mistake of barking up the wrong tree like the rest of the idiot mainsteam parties, Frog. You are under scrutiny….
September 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
noting the Green party had nothing to say on this tragedy that had the nation reeling, stunned and grinding and gnashing its teeth
dont you live in the same world as the rest of NZ, greens, or is it you know where any incisive press comment will ultimately lead you (same general direction as libz and alcp into the highly indicated drug law reform….)
what gives frog. you lot still chicken? or just incapable of holistic analysis?
you claim principled policy is not a popularity contest, but when any issue comes along relating to drugs, the greens just dont seem to apply their courageous principled stance anymore…
is keith locke still your useless law and order spokesman, btw?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Given that the Greens are such staunch defenders of the gangs can one of you please explain to me what your position is re the gang problem.
Or is it the position of the Greens that there is NO problem?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
What’s a gang?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
not quite, big bro, it is the position of the green party that they really dont know what to say, because all law and disorder paths lead to the party’s Drug Law Reform policy…
September 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
smash the gangs. legalise drugs
September 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Ahh…another Trojan horse.
Funny thing is that is not something I hear the Greens campaigning on, I would love to hear Russ say “we will smash the gangs by legalising drugs”
The question that raises is this, who is going to pay for the drug huge increase in rehabilitation courses and associated medical costs if you legalise all drugs?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
WTF are you idiots on about?
Mr D: you’re right. Focus on the crime, not the criminal. That is surely the logic behind frog’s post which is critical of Goff’s proposal.
BP still won’e answer my question: what is the non-association order of which he speaks?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Heh heh - “Minister of corrections.” That’s right up there in funny ministry names, along side silly walks.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“The question that raises is this, who is going to pay for the drug huge increase in rehabilitation courses and associated medical costs if you legalise all drugs?”
The tax revenue raised from the legal sale of soft recreational drugs?
Weedeater has a point, the removal of drug dealing revenue from the gangs would surely decrease their influence and membership somewhat.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
BB
By not incarcerating people for victimless crimes we save money on jails and correction. By reducing criminal activity induced by the need to get enough money to overcome the prohibition we reduce property crime. More honest behaviour becomes the norm… Things quit disappearing into people’s veins. We save in terms of damage not done, and insurance claims not required. We save a lot BB, and I don’t think I’ve touched on half of it. People get addicted for a lot of reasons but there’s no control whatsoever over what they’re exposed to at this point. It is as easy for someone who is selling Cannabis to sell stuff that’s laced with P or some other psychotropic… there’s no control over it at all.
The “associated medical costs” will prove to be less overall, because most of the harm associated with cannabis use is simply fictional, and the harm associated with stronger drugs is less than the harm of prohibition.
What about the harm to the credibility of government and teachers and the like from telling people who know better from first-hand experience, that cannabis will make them insane and cause them all sorts of damage? That whopper has been out since I was at University and it was readily understood then to be in the same category as the lies told to keep the Vietnam war going. People who know the government is lying about something are unlikely to have much faith in its words about anything else. So the warnings about the real dangers of ‘P’ fall on deaf ears.
How smart is that REALLY?
respectfully
BJ
September 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
BJ
There is endless medial evidence to support the assertion that cannabis is extremely harmful.
I am also astounded that you can call drugs a victim less crime, I am sure you have seen the damage and pain it causes and I do not share your view that legalising drugs will see a drop in usage.
Once again it will be the tax payer who has to pick up the pieces.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
whereas now it is the taxpayer/insurance premium payers who pick up the costs of prohibition..
..and bb..
..’endless medical evidence’..eh..?
..that’s why countries with sane drug policies are dispensing medical marijuana…eh bb..
..so they can ensure more of that ‘endless medical evidence’..
..eh..?
(just plucking it out of that lower orifice again..eh bb..?..
..making it up as you go..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
lol ALCP nominates candidate for Auckland Central
September 15th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
all power to the ALCP (and minor coalition partners Green party) AND TO THE DETRIMENT OF bABLYON, JAH RASTA. peace (!!)
September 15th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
if russel practiced it enough times he would get it. (ie, not just reads the news, lol ‘get it’?
understand the linkage between crime and ‘criminalisation’…
how ’bout that?
anyway you will have teh alcp candidate to say it loud and clear (havent you heard it yet a thousand fricken times)
smash gangs. legalise drugs
weedeater
September 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
plus its good medicine and has food value and biodiversity…
September 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
ok talk me into it . well also round up big bro and put him in to the stocks for a week (i know where is set is btw…).
September 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
i know where is head is at.
no i meant i know where a set of ’stocks are’. couple of labour party people could deserve a stretch too.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
remember that ol song ‘chains’ GoffinKing wassnt it
September 15th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Too much emphasis on human rights (Kieth Locke & co) + TV crews + Tony Ellis, Barry Hart, Peter Williams.. We know how to deal with crime (you create a disincentive for bad behaviour and a carrot approach as well) but we aren’t allowed.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Mention KL and post goes for moderation …… (understandably)
September 15th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
jh yes i was thinking about that as i was at work this afternoon and thinking i have said that before about keith as a ribbing, anyway as have others and people do on line all the time re their MPs (sometimes with some substance to jsutify the accusation).
useless as a descrition of mps is fair if we perceive job is not being done properly.
anyway i was thinking if someone bag s me on line for whatever reason and someone did on norml once, i was there straight away to front up and defend my position.
keith should front up and for example draw the parallels and intrinisic connections betwee the war on terror and war on drugs.
then i might retract my disparaging comment
regards
September 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
but i think we can all agree about putting big bro in the stocks?
September 17th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Do the Greens intend to support the Black Powers treaty claim?
September 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am
If the number and coherency of his comments is anything to go by, one has to ask
Is weedeater related to philU?
His son perhaps?
September 17th, 2008 at 9:34 am
BB, neither the Waitangi Tribunal or Black Power will publicly release the claim until it is registered, so the Greens haven’t seen it and so have no idea whether it is of merit or not.
Nor does Ron Mark who has said it should be thrown out, apparently simply on the basis of who has made the claim, rather than with any knowledge of its substance.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I never thought I would say this but Ron Mark is absolutely right.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am
i’m sure everyone is massively sceptical, but why use the Tribunal when we could just go with a trial by media?
September 17th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Really big bro? Seems entirely predictable to me.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Valis
And it seems that the Greens response is entirely predictable as well, they will not declare their hand on this before the election just in case it scares a few voters.
However we both know that the Greens will fall in behind the Black Power claim once the election has been and gone.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Again predictable. But we shouldn’t have to wait until after the election to find out.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am
BB, you put up the same argument (or lack thereof) with Ahmed Zaoui.
It really concerns me that there are people like you who think certain groups or individuals should be denied access to judicial process simply on the basis of who they are.
Unfortunately, some of the people who think like you run the Parliamentary Labour Party and actually did deny (via the Foreshore and Seabed Act) certain groups access to judicial process not so long ago.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Toad
Zaoui IS a convicted terrorist, he also arrived here and destroyed his passport, the man is a parasite and a threat to our security.
He should have been put on the first plane out of here.
The only judicial process I want to see the Black Power involved in is the one that smashes them or sends them to Jail for simply being a member of that criminal organisation.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Just for a bit of balance, BB, I am in total support of Zaoui staying in NZ. I think your selective knowledge of his history serves your ignorance well, but has very little to do with the man himself, or the truth for that matter.
Keep living in your bubble, BB!
September 17th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Meghan
So you are quiet happy for NZ to become a haven for terrorists?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Ah, you bait. Your rationale would also prohibit Nelson Mandala from visiting NZ. Having friends who know Zaoui very well, I can be quite confident that you have no idea what this man is like, or his true history, or his true intention. It is totally ridiculous to think he is a treat to NZ, and if he really was, then he would not have been allowed to stay. It just so happens that the original security certificate was wrong, as is your continuing prejudice.
It must be wonderful, inside your bubble.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:17 am
come on bb..!
not zaoui..again..!
lets talk about your man/master of the universe/..key..
..whose main claim to fame/c.v..
..has just all turned to dust..
..leaving jhim standing in front of the rubble..
..with that sickly smile he so favours..
..going..’it wasn’t me!’..
..and then of course there is that phd on the honesty of parties..and their election promises..
..and the biggest bunch of duplicitous/lying b*stards..
were the 96-99 national government..
..over 50% of their election promises were pure bullsh*t..
..and those same lying/duplicitous bast*rds..
..are those ones now standing/hiding beside/behind john key..
..going..’we aren’t lying this time..!’..
can we talk about those relevant/current things..eh bb..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 17th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Meghan
You are right about Mandela, he is also a convicted terrorist, the difference of course is that he is not a threat or potential threat to NZ.
Can I assume you would also open your arms to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness seeing as you have no problem with those who have been convicted of terrorist crimes?
Mind you, I assume that as the man is now here he is working to pay back the money he took from the tax payer in legal fees.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Sorry folks, it was me who got BB onto the Zaoui bandwagon.
Wind him up and off he goes, just like a clockwork mouse.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Gerrit - What part of “prohibition causes crime, but regulation is much, much better” do you not understand?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
weedeater,
you are becoming more like philu, confused and dazed.
Where did I say that?
If that is what weed does to you, I will stick to a good single malt.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
no, you didnt say that, Gerrit but you made out you dont understand the concept (that regulation is way better than prohibiton)
which is a general problem of the greens because we can see from the other astute observations of pro-Green Party frogbloggers, that the Green Party leadership well understand that prohibition is causing crime and murder in NZ.
So why then is reform advocacy not on the Green campaign agenda? (puts on chicken suit and makes loud clucking noises….)
seriously, it is not a recommendation to voters like me who previously voted green, that your leadership is too feeble to take the cannabis law reform arguments to NZ, even though LAW AND DISORDER is a Key election issue yet again. shame…
September 18th, 2008 at 6:42 am
weedeater,
your paranoia is getting to you.
I have made no comment on this posting except to ask if you ae philu son.
Still, if you think that if something is against the law (drunk driving, speeding, hitting your kids, murder, manufacturing P, growing weed, etc) is best controlled by regulation. Go for it. Put it to the voters.
I would rather see all crimes on the statue books enforced by prohibition and guilty offenders of the serious crimes being injected with one ounce of lead between the eye balls.
To me the LAW is black and white. And ORDER is maintained by the rigourous enforcement thereoff.
The correct method to rectify laws you may disagree with is in the peoples parliament. Not the flouting of current laws.
But hey, that is my positon.
Simply because it is not an issue that is highly relevant to a vast majority of people. Only to weed wackers.
At last (and not before time) the Greens are getting pragmatic. Might even get to see them up to 30% of the vote at this rate.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:59 am
no one’s talking about legal regulation of murder or hitting your kids ffs Gerrit. it is truely pathetic to see that silly straw man argument again on Frog Blog…
check out this one from ALCP and you might understand the rationale of ’single issue’ reform a little better. Prohibition killed sgnt Wilkinson: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0809/S00171.htm
The law and disorder in NZ makes the counterproductive cannabis law an election issue for all Nz (as it has been ever MMP election), and the Greens expose themselves for criticism by not handling the jandle
incidently, make pot seriously enforced Gerrit (black and white) and i hope you enjoy paying for the 800 new prisons to house the half million criminals…
p.s. i am standing for parliament. Auckland Central.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am
weedeater,
A single issue political party will never get my vote, so dont count on it.
What you are implying is that as long as enough people break the law, that makes it OK as the consequences in having to lock up that many people is too large a law and order issue.
Interesting outlook. Now if we were all to speed above the legal limit, that would make it OK as the numbers would be too great to, one catch, two convict and three punish.
Strange ethic you have.
Be safe in your election campaign. I sincerly hope you dont do any good.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
its a plant gerrit, not a crime…(comprendez?) -also its your party’s own policy to legalise and regulate it….
We as a society need to grow up and let adults make an informed decision, in the same way i would not begrudge you with your single malt (even thoug my dad made us miserable night after night when i was young, because of his sly whisky habit)
why on earth would u wish an environmentalist and social justice advocate, and friend of the general green ethics to not do any good? A little bit bitter and twisted there, gerrit