Green Police priorities

October 31st, 2007 at 6:57 am by David Farrar

Is it only me who has been amused by the different positions the Greens have taken on Police actions this week.

When it comes to swooping on parents who were reported as having smacked a child, the Greens were fully supportive:

“I think it’s really great that the school had the courage to report the woman and that it sounds from what little we know that the processes are being followed exactly as police and CYF told us they would be when we put this through Parliament,”

This was after three (yes three) police officers arrived at a mother’s home, acting on a complaint from a neighbour that the mother had smacked her child on the backside with the palm of her hand during an incident around the trampoline in the backyard.

But what do the Greens say when it doesn’t involve the serious crime of smacking a backside, but minor stuff like alleged firearm and terrorism offences or to quote Helen Clark:

‘at the very least illicitly used firearms, constructed Molotov cocktails and trained themselves in how to use napalm.’

So let’s see what Keith Locke has said

“MP Keith Locke says the police need to back off.”

Locke spoke saying New Zealand was looking hard for a way to join the war on terror.

“They were happy when [Algerian refugee] Ahmed Zaoui came along, we had our very own terrorist. When that fell through they went after activists.”

So the Greens claim this is all invented to make us look tough in the war on terror.

So going after mothers who smack their child on the backside is great, but going after people whom to quote Helen Clark “at the very least illicitly used firearms, constructed Molotov cocktails and trained themselves in how to use napalm” is bad and the Police aren’t given any benefit of the doubt.

Yes I know the mother in question wasn’t arrested at gun point, but you know it would be nice if the Greens were just slightly more balanced on these issues.  They attack the Police and the Government at every turn on the arrests, without even waiting to hear any evidence.  They demand bail for all 17 arrested, without even waiting to hear any details.

No tag for this post.

32 Responses to “Green Police priorities”

  1. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    Greens will be gone this election. It was all just a drug induced delusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    yes, it is absolutely ridiculous.

    and the mother in question had more than one complaint made against her from more than one source. Police were justified in following this up – though maybe 3 is overkill – but we don’t know because we don’t know the reasoning behind this.

    Also why do some people treat police as if they were a different species. Please remember that the police are drawn from OUR community and reflect us all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    They are also soft on drugs which do considerable damage to human tissue but Sue Kedgley gets all worked up about school lunches and the possible damage they might cause. Basically the Greens are not all that bright who do not look carefuuly at the science behind their fears and are all dull ageing pensioners. Have their caucus will be over 60 at the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. rfhoward (442 comments) says:

    The Greens inevitably attract nutters and the eccentric. Unfortunately there are enough of them to keep the party in parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    The other interesting aspect was Bradford’s statement on Breakfast on Monday morning that she had “little confidence” in the police after the “terrorism arrests” – yet she obviously has confidence in the police to correctly interpret her garbled, ambiguous anti-smacking legislation! There’s a word that the speaker won’t tolerate, but we can freely use here – hypocrite!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dad4justice (7,406 comments) says:

    Maybe if the utopian wasted space greens stopped sniffing molotov cocktails then maybe a smack on the bum could do Sue a little bit of good ? Just a thought .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Psycho Milt (1,974 comments) says:

    Basically, the more prominence the Greens give to commos like Locke and Bradford, the more damage they’re likely to do their support.

    You’d think the Greens could figure out that when people are wondering how come there are no cops to investigate the burglary or car theft they’ve just suffered, it might be politically inept to have Sue Bradford front up saying how chuffed she is that the cops are instead devoting their time to investigating mothers who whacked their kid on the bum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    I wonder how an observation such as this will affect the increasingly cosy relationship the Greens were thought to be having with the Maori Party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    Agreed. Hypocrisy is something that seems common to most all politicians. And 100% hypocrisy = 0% credibility.

    But tell me something – why is that the good questions re hypocritical statements by pollies never get answered by them? Example – why has someone never asked Bush why it is ok for the USA and Israel to have weapons of mass destruction but not other countries?

    Or more domestically – why do Locke and Bradford never get asked these questions, or if they do, get pressed hard on them?

    Is one of you lot in the media who can tell me?

    And also – dont think the general public dont notice their hypocritical positions. That is precisely why politicians are rated so low.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Greens, in their opinion “the only friends of the earth”. Where will their platform be shortly when new renewable energy technologies will reveal endless sources of clean power? Next step after heat pumps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Some interesting comments coming through:
    To Summarise:
    Green Policy in Sound Bites for the Simple!
    Napalm Good. Light Smack Bad
    Cannabis Good Macdonalds Bad
    Snails Good Humans Bad
    Pol Pot Good George Bush Bad
    Trains Good Cars Bad
    Trees Good Timber Bad
    Etc etc etc etc

    [DPF: Hey I sense some billboards coming on. Anyone got a phone number for the Exclusive Brethren to see if they will fund them? :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Yvette (2,589 comments) says:

    “They were happy when Ahmed Zaoui came along, we had our very own terrorist. When that fell through they went after activists.”
    So, Keith, the police knew they were freeing Zaoui at least a year before the SIS decided that?

    There appears to be similar little gaps in the information we are given on the Ruatoki ‘invasion’. While the police and others muck about considering charges, the ‘defence’ through TV ONE has run more than two programmes I have seen on how peaceable Tohoe are, holding picnics to practice skeet shooting – but of course armed to the teeth – so wouldn’t police take some precautions in case these people, who all seem to have a firearm, sort of resist people being taken from their midst?

    Plus
    “O’Connor defended police actions said criminals didn’t respect school buses:
    “Four years ago, in the same area, two armed gang members wanted in relation to a homicide tried to escape from police by hiding on a kohanga reo bus full of children.” ”

    This whole thing is a complicated enough mess without the layer of contradiction and bloody hypocrisy that politicians cast over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. bwakile (757 comments) says:

    It has always amazed me that in order to save the whales we must first have our freedom of speech removed, not be able to discipline our children and allow our drug induced daughters to be prostitutes a as a career option.

    The Greens are nothing more than communists in sheeps clothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    the one good policy the greens have – and it almost enough to make me vote for them – is to restrict ownership of the land in New Zealand to those that live in New Zealand. (another big off topic topic).

    Other than that they are the classic (sometime) intelligent but brainless left example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Excellent post DPF — well spotted. As others have mentioned the Greens, while having a praiseworthy concern for the environment, are basically socialists of the extreme left. So they are suspicious of authority — particularly the police — because socialism is about power. And socialists don’t like any power except their own — hence they normally are very suspicious of the police — who represent power not directly under their control.

    They can however be expected to have a soft spot for Maori radicals — overthrowing the existing order is part of the DNA of the socialist movement.

    But why should they support the police against parents who smack their children? Unhappily the socialists are always suspicious of the family — because the family and especially parents are not directly under the control of the state. Hence they represent a threat, in the socialists eyes anyway, because they have power not directly controlled by the state.

    I would like to see a government — and hopefully National will take note of this — that vigorously pursues those buying military style weapons and explosives, including napalm, and threatens to kill white people.

    On the other hand I would like to see a government that changes the law so that parents can physically discipline their children, as they have been doing from time immemorial.

    I think we need a change of government. And without the Greens. Perhaps the Exclusive Brethren were right after all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    Scott said “I think we need a change of government. And without the Greens. Perhaps the Exclusive Brethren were right after all?”

    Very hard to find fault with what you are saying Scott – excellent contribution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Yes David – look it’s all coming true, just as the National Party had foretold – the prisons are swarming with innocent parent’s and sue bradford is dancing maniacally on the grave of the nuclear family. ffs give us a break David.

    “But what do the Greens say when it doesn’t involve the serious crime of smacking a backside, but minor stuff like alleged firearm and terrorism offences or to quote Helen Clark:”

    As far as I know there hasn’t been any charges laid under the terrorism suppression Act – stop being disingenuous david

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. radvad (620 comments) says:

    The Greens ( allegedly the non violence party) have also been very quiet about Mallard.

    It would also seem the mother in question did very little different to what David Cunliffe allegedly did to his child at a shopping mall. Where was Bradford then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. berend (1,599 comments) says:

    Well, it seems to work for them. Marxists don’t need to be consistent. There are enough idiots who love the state coming down on parents and letting guys with molotov cocktails attacking the police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “guys with molotov cocktails attacking the police.”

    Wow! First I had heard about this. Can you point me to your source please?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Camryn (549 comments) says:

    VTO – WTF? So investors setting up businesses can only rent? What about non-resident citizens such as myself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    roger nome said “As far as I know there hasn’t been any charges laid under the terrorism suppression Act – stop being disingenuous david”

    Disingenious? roger nome, if anyone is being disingenious, it is your own good self! You know full well that the Solicitor General has been asked to approve charges under the TSA, and you omit the money quote from Dear Leader where she convicts those who have been arrested – may I remind you?

    “The activists rounded up in police anti-terror raids had been training to use napalm, Prime Minister Helen Clark confirmed yesterday.

    Her comment was the first official admission of previously unconfirmed reports about napalm being used at activists’ training camps in the Ureweras.

    Clark’s comment yesterday – that those arrested “at the very least” had been training with firearms and napalm – was also unusual, in that she was discussing cases currently before the courts.”

    Also this:

    “She dismissed allegations by the Maori Party that the Government was conspiring with police to target Maori sovereignty activists, saying such a move would be illegal.

    But she said she had been briefed by police and it was plain those arrested had been training with napalm – something police have not officially confirmed.

    Clark lashed out at the Maori Party for calling for senior minister Trevor Mallard to be prosecuted after he punched an opposition MP last week while defending those arrested in the raids.

    “I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Maori Party on the one hand is demanding police prosecute Trevor Mallard for assault and on the other is claiming people, who at the very least have illicitly used firearms, constructed molotov cocktails and trained themselves in how to use napalm, should not be charged,” Clark said.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    I2:

    I don’t think anyone is saying that those arrested shouldn’t have charged. The contention is that people are bandying about the “T” word, when in fact no one has been charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act. David is as guilty of this as any sensationalist media outlet.

    In fact the crown is now admitting that there is no case under the Act where 5 of the 17 activists are concerned. Now it’s merely “thinking” about charging the others under the Act. Expect to see more embarrassment for the police in the coming weeks.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4255980a10.html

    [DPF: The fact the search warrants used the Act is news worthy. I am not surprised not all 17 are being charged under that Act - I predicted as much some time ago]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    Camryn.

    Yes. To own land in nz you should live here. If that means your business has to lease land because you dont live here then so be it.

    It goes right to the heart of the strength of a community. Absentee landlords and tenant communities make for weak communities. This is not unusual – many countries do not allow non-inhabitants to own land.

    This does not affect any other investment flows etc – it is solely to do with land and property ownership. There is no benefit in allowing the 1 billion people in north america and europe (for exmple) to own land here.

    You seem to disagree – i would be interest as to why

    I may be talking myself out of benefit here as I am a residential property developer and have been for near 20 years. As such I have some understanding of land ownership and communities etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    Stay on topic Nome you disgusting troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Inventory2 (9,788 comments) says:

    roger – what about Sue Bradford – how do you reconcile her unwavering support for the police to correctly investigate smacking allegations (and thanks radvad – I’d forgotten about Cunliffe – did three policement go round to talk to the about-to-become-a-frontbench Labour MP? Thought not.) with her vote of no confidence in the police regarding the arrests of “terror suspects”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    good dog-whistle dpf..

    they are all up..and barking..

    (as expected..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and look..you’ve even managed to drag old ‘disgusted’ kimble away from its’ talkback..and daytime soaps..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “DPF: The fact the search warrants used the Act is news worthy.”

    Especially if you want to whip up a reactionary fever hey David. Look no one has been charged under the TSA, it has merely been mentioned as a possibility – so why are you branding the “Urewera 17″ as alleged terrorists?

    “hey attack the Police and the Government at every turn on the arrests, without even waiting to hear any evidence.”

    What BS David. The greens have rightly criticised the illegal activity of the police when pulling innocent people out of their cars and subjecting them to the indignity of being treated like a criminal. They have also rightly questioned the need for the police to use the “terrorism suppression act” in this instance. i.e. If anyone was plotting a murder they could be charged with “criminal conspiracy” – which carries a hefty sentence itself. Do you have a problem with these valid objections? If so why?

    “Inventory2 ”

    “how do you reconcile her unwavering support for the police to correctly investigate smacking allegations”

    Investigating a possible offense is one thing – pointing a gun a someone’s head, arresting them and holding them without bail is quite another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. SPC (4,615 comments) says:

    I sense a dancing cossack approach towards the Greens which will increase as some realise that National won’t be sleep walking to any victory. It reminds me of the Herald editorial of 2005 – almost demanding voters ensure either a National win or a Labour coalition excluding the Greens … (it reminds one of the media taking up a position of opposition to the Labour government in the winter of 2000) which one can expect to be repeated again in 2008.

    The issue is balance.

    One can be for personal freedoms/choice and also for a progressive public health policy.

    One can be for protecting the weak minor and also be for protecting the civil liberties and human rights of political protesters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. SPC (4,615 comments) says:

    One can note the theme for the attacks parallels the recent issue of Investigate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. keithlocke (1 comment) says:

    It is good to debate the “terror raids”. The Green criticisms of the Police conduct of the raids is widely shared within the community.

    But I find it strange that David Farrar accuses the Greens of prejudging the evidence, which we haven’t actually, at the same time as he accepts as gospel Helen Clark’s “evidence” which hasn’t even surfaced in court yet : that the accused “at the very least illicitly used firearms, constructed Molotov cocktails and trained themselves how to use napalm.” More to the point what does ….. think of a PM providing some version of “evidence” gained in private briefings and thus prejudicing her Solicitor General and Attorney General’s consideration of whether to lay charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act?

    By the way, the Greens have never demanded bail for all the accused. We too wait for the evidence. I can understand why David thinks otherwise because an item on the TV3 website on October 20 wrongly summarised my comments to Radio Live in Aotea Square that day. Others protesting that day did call for bail for all the accused, but I didn’t. A sub-editor may have mistakenly connected my views with those of other people protesting at the same venue.

    It is also a relevant debate as to whether the Police should go down the track of trying to prosecute on terrorist charges (where offenders get an extra penalty for their political motives), when any wrongdoing would better be prosecuted under the Crimes Act. See my Second Reading speech on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill – http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech11334.html.

    [DPF: Thanks for the clarification and post Keith. I think Clark was silly to start laying out details, but I also think the non stop protests are undermining the legal process ahead. I have my own doubts about the necessity of all the actions taken, but am suspending judgement until I'm better informed]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.