David Garrett
September 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am by David FarrarThe Standard speculates that David Garrett may be ACT’s mystery No 5 candidate. He is a barrister associated with the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
By coincidence Garrett had a column in the Herald on Wednesday on Labour’s sudden interest in banning gangs:
There is nothing particularly radical about Labour’s endorsement of a policy banning gangs – which begs the question why it has taken so long. …
Given Labour’s long opposition to such laws it is difficult not to be cynical about its timing now – eight weeks from an election.
Indeed. The chance of Labour actually passing a law to ban gangs is around equal to their chance of developing nuclear weapons.
The point is well made that banning gangs per se may not in fact be such a good idea – at least while the Mongrel Mob and Black Power strut around in their patches or “colours” they are easily identifiable.
True.
Criminal non-association laws would have the same effect without the disadvantages.
The police are aware who most gang members are and which of them have criminal records. If consorting with known criminals becomes an offence, groups of intimidating thugs on our streets would quickly become a thing of the past. Problematic laws banning gangs themselves would become unnecessary.
But how many criminals are needed for it to become consorting? Some would argue Cabinet would become illegal 
Although it’s about 25 years too late, Labour’s belated realisation that gangs are just criminal organisations, and not some alternative to whanau, is a welcome development. Pity it comes so close to an election.
Just a coincidence I am sure.
Related posts:
- David Garrett on why he is against the death penalty
- Garrett to resign tomorrow
- Banning Gangs
- David Garrett on Three Strikes law
September 19th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I think the government would be better to target the gangs under Domestic Terrorism laws, which
is after all what they are.
We sure as hell wouldn’t be putting up with this sort of behaviour from International Terrorists.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I think the government would be better to target the gangs under Domestic Terrorism laws, which is after all what they are.
Gang members are not terrorists. The word “terrorist” means something quite specific. They are, mostly, criminals of a different variety.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Ryan I disagree
This from Wiki
“There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence …”
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
the ‘consorting laws’ were one of the main drivers of abuse/perversion of police powers..
it became a ‘grab-all’ for anyone the cops felt like harrassing/locking up/charging..,
..but had no other evidence of any other crimes..
..the previous consorting laws became a bye-word for cynical police abuse of their powers..
..you wanna gut the gangs…?
..legaiise pot..
..and crack down/focus on speed/’p’..
..that will tear away their means of financial support..
..it’s that simple..
..end of story..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
d-mum,
Fair enough, but our terrorism laws are thankfully a little more specific than “acts of unlawful violence”. We’ve already got the term “violent criminal” for people who perpetrate acts of unlawful violence. If gangs were trying to use violence to bring about some kind of political or religious change in New Zealand, they would move from violent criminals to terrorists.
However, I think it’s correct to say that gangs are organised. Frankly, if you wanted to get gangs to have political goals, decriminalising cannabis would be a good start. They’d lose a large amount of revenue if cannabis was legal.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Too late.
Vote:Too much of a ‘me tooism’.
And where does this flip flop leave Police Minister King who said the idea was crazy?
September 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
“The Standard speculates that David Garrett may be ACT’s mystery No 5 candidate. He is a barrister associated with the Sensible Sentencing Trust.”
Taking up the theme of the previous post 50 days till “The Standard” goes out of business till next election ?
Bryan Spondre
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
If patches weren’t a pscychological advantage to gangs, they wouldn’t wear them. So ban the patches.
Parliament was not constructed for criminal activity. Gangs are and they happily admit it.
How many murders last year were committed by people not wearing a gang patch? And you reckon of those victims, if they saw a gang patch they would have been safer because they could have run for their lives? Easily identifiable, my ass.
According to Russel “fuck I’m dense” Norman, banning gangs will push them “further” underground. You get impression that however much a gang is already “underground” Russel will just make up a new level of “undergroundness” until the fuckers fall out the other side of the earth. Dumb fuck. The well known gangs of NZ can’t operate “underground”. They thrive on high visibility and intimidation. What sort of “underground gang” files a Treaty claim?
Ban the fuckin’ gangs and stop being such limp wads. When the level of debate on this rises higher than a 12 year old could muster we’ll see some positive change.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
“According to Russell “fuck I’m dense” Norman, banning gangs will push them “further” underground. You get impression that however much a gang is already “underground” Russel will just make up a new level of “undergroundness” until the fuckers fall out the other side of the earth. Dumb fuck. The well known gangs of NZ can’t operate “underground”. They thrive on high visibility and intimidation. What sort of “underground gang” files a Treaty claim?”
Umm, an underground gang that wants Treaty funding to expand it’s drug operations into Asia ?
Bryan Spondre
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Nah, don’t ban patches.
Make them a legitimate defence force training apparatus.
5 rounds in a 1 inch grouping.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
“..legaiise pot..”
Philu: sounds rather like the claims made about legalising prostitution ? It would hurt the gangs. Has it ?
Bryan Spondre
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
DPF: section 98A of the Crimes Act defines an organised criminal group as 3 or more people. I was reading it the other day and thinking that it it described the Labour government well, particularly:
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who participates (whether as a member or an associate member or prospective member) in an organised criminal group, knowing that it is an organised criminal group, and—
(a) knowing that his or her participation contributes to the occurrence of criminal activity; or
(b) reckless as to whether his or her participation may contribute to the occurrence of criminal activity.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a group is an organised criminal group if it is a group of 3 or more people who have as their objective or one of their objectives—
(a) obtaining material benefits from the commission of offences that are punishable by imprisonment for a term of 4 years or more
As far as I can see this law already covers gangs and there’s no need for yet another law which would pose a risk to civil liberties (98A is dubious enough in that regard, since it covers being a member of a group that commits crimes *outside* NZ) . But IMHO the easiest and cheapest way to deal with gangs is to legalise drugs:
Vote:http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/the-pointless-death-of-an-undercover-policeman/
September 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Philu: sounds rather like the claims made about legalising prostitution ? It would hurt the gangs. Has it ?
I see no reason to believe it hasn’t, though running brothels was never the moneyspinner for gangs that the illegal drug industry is.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
There’s no Black Power in Singapore.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I hope ACT doesn’t end up with a candidate who doesn’t believe in freedom of association. Charge gang members with committing crimes, not with whom they associate with.
Getting rid of our silly drug laws (effective subsidies/monopoly power on distribution) will do more to destroy gangs than some silly ban ever will. And I don’t just mean pot.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 11:02 am
“There’s no Black Power in Singapore.”
Theres also no chewing gum.
Proving that when you ban chewing gum, gangs all but dissapear.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
And there are stuff all triads in Tokoroa.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Well on the plus side it’s nice that someone has finally made an intelligent contribution to the debate rather than this dumb kneejerk politics that so many are engaging in.
My personal view is that we should arrest people for committing crime, not because they wear clothes we don’t like and hang out together.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 11:46 am
“Although it’s about 25 years too late, Labour’s belated realisation that gangs are just criminal organisations, and not some alternative to whanau, is a welcome development. Pity it comes so close to an election.”
Hell will freeze over before the socialists admit the connection between fatherless youth and WHERE they turn for “father figures” in their lives. Gangs ARE “an alternative to Whanau”, actually, as well as being criminal organisations.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
# unaha-closp (360) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating3 Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
There’s no Black Power in Singapore.
“And there are stuff all triads in Tokoroa.”
So? There are stuff all Triads in Singapore, too. If it wasn’t for Singapore’s toughness on crime, certain international terrorist plots would never have been “busted” before they happened, either. While Civil liberties activists and lawyers are busily abetting criminals and terrorists in the USA and and Canada and the UK and certain European and Scandinavian countries, Singapore just does what has to be done, and not only are they very much the better for it, but there has been spin-off benefits in reduced grief for the rest of the world.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I’m working in the ACT Office at the moment and while there was some discussion of David Garrett, my understanding is they’ve since gone onto consider other possible candidates. Heard John Banks mentioned actually, however that option seems unlikely to me.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I heard, on the grapevine, that the mystery candidate is “Redbaiter”.
Chosen for his diplomacy and “kid gloves” approach to dealing with the tough issues that scare ignorant lefties so much.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Hey Doc, I’m no nappy wearing pseudo liberal. I’m a Conservative.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Why oh why do the socialists continue to get away with their namby-pamby “getting tough on crims doesn’t reduce crime” line? This is absurd and false.
Here is how it works in reality. Most unsolved crime is committed, not by unknown criminals, but by known ones to whom THOSE crimes have not been connected. The result of locking up criminals earlier in their career, and for longer, actually results in spectacular reductions in crime.
“…..The vast majority of people obey the law, particularly with regard to serious offenses, out of habit that was learned relatively early in life. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders who have failed to learn this basic self-control….”
(Francis Fukuyama: “The Great Disruption”).
And tragically, no amount of “rehabilitation” after the event seems to work, with the possible exception of faith-based rehabilitation. As Charles Murray points out in “The coming of Custodial Democracy”, the legacy of our failure to confront the fatherlessness epidemic, will be either 1 in 100 males in jail, or “crime and social disorder…..making areas of the wealthiest societies on earth almost uninhabitable” (Fukuyama again); or a police surveillance state.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Hope it’s Bruce Wayne.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
The US Treasury harbours strong suspicions Singapore based Asia World Co Ltd (owned by Cecilia Ng and Steven Law) is deeply involved in the exportation of heroin and laundering of junta profits. They placed sanctions on the couples activities back in Feb after getting extremely limited cooperation from Singapore on the matter.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Suppose I should also mention the rumour going around the office that it’s Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Newsflash …. I am reliably informed the ACT No.5 spot is going to a New Zealander with REAL liberal credentials
you’ve all heard of him
you’ve all read about him
you’ve all thought about him
you’e all wondered about him
here he is revealed
philu
sorry guys, only joking, I know that the hospitals are having to turn away heart patients and I certainly don’t want to add to their troubles.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I heard it was Owen Glenn – guess the only way to find out is by going to the Law and Order policy launch on sunday.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Some would argue Cabinet would become illegal
gud on ya m8
Vote:that’s a 5 smiler!
September 19th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Kiwipolemist……..Section 98A is similar to all the past association clauses. There are so many ingredients to the clauses and they are open to such wide judicial interpretation as to matters of knowledge and intent that it is a waste of time trying to prosecute someone under them and that is why they are so seldom used.. The law needs to be simple and without qualification and that is certainly not going to happen while PALMER is in charge of the Law Commission.
Vote:September 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
goodgod
Please will you provide a definition of “gang” so those of us involved in gangs can make sure we don’t comply with the definition.
My “Gang” are the cast and crew putting on a “Gang Show” next week at the Little Theatre in Lower Hutt
Vote:It’s sold out so this can’t be advertising David
September 20th, 2008 at 10:16 am
“Parliament was not constructed for criminal activity. Gangs are and they happily admit it.”
Funny thing is that many more people have been fucked over by the criminal/socialist violations of their rights by Government than all the gangs put together….
Vote: