Harawira v McClay

August 19th, 2012 at 9:54 am by David Farrar

Neil Reid at SST reports:

A war of words has erupted over National MP ’s proposed gang patch ban, with Mana Party leader labelling him a “foolish dickhead” promoting a “deeply racist” bill.

Harawira has threatened to wear a gang patch into Parliament if the bill becomes law, a move McClay says casts doubts on Harawira’s suitability to be an MP.

“The guy is such an idiot,” Harawira said. “I’m not going to stand by and watch a blonde, blue-eyed redneck kick around poor people who, out of desperation, bond together because they see nothing in the blonde, blue-eyed society to give them a sense of hope for their own or their children’s futures.”

I don’t know what Todd McClay’s hair colour or eye colour has to do with anything. And I also don’t think wanting to ban gang patches inside government buildings is a redneck move. I think it is an anti-gang move.

Harawira said he understood why some people from lower socio-economic backgrounds joined gangs, adding that 90 per cent of those targeted by the bill would be Maori, making it a “deeply racist piece of legislation”.

Does that mean the DPB is racist?

Tags: ,

93 Responses to “Harawira v McClay”

  1. hmmokrightitis (1,579 comments) says:

    “that 90 per cent of those targeted by the bill would be Maori, making it a “deeply racist piece of legislation””

    Does this PoS even think before he opens his mouth? What next?

    “100% of maori’s are targeted by the requirements of the Privacy Act, making it the most racist legislation in the world, in, like, ever.”

    Im so glad my taxes pay this dickhead. No, really I am. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    So Maori join the Mongrel Mob ” to give them a sense of hope for their own or their children’s futures.”

    Seriously is Harawira taking the mickey? What an absolutely bizarre comment…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Graeme Edgeler (3,279 comments) says:

    And I also don’t think wanting to ban gang patches inside government buildings is a redneck move. I think it is an anti-gang move.

    And raising the drinking age is an anti-alcohol-related-harm move.

    Why do you support alcohol-related harm?

    [DPF: I don't think that those who want to increase the age are doing so because they hate 18 and 19 year olds. I think their motivation is to reduce alcohol harm.

    Also note that the drinking age explictly targets 18 and 19 year olds. Gang patch banning does not target a group - it targets a choice.

    As it happens I did not support the Wanganui legislation]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kowtow (8,089 comments) says:

    The ban should be on all criminal “patches” everywhere.

    It is not a legitimate expression of speech to proclaim criminality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wat dabney (3,746 comments) says:

    Child abuse is disproportionately carried out by Maori. Thererfore we must presumably also join Mr Hatfield in opposing child-protection legislation, since it is inherently racist.

    And white-collar crime is predominantly carried out by whites, so I hope no one here would be so racist as to support anti-fraud legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Go for it Hone – McClays a weak opponent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. wat dabney (3,746 comments) says:

    It is not a legitimate expression of speech to proclaim criminality.

    So if the state bans something – makes it “criminal” – it can also ban speech related to it?

    No one is allowed to discuss and protest matters criminalised by the state?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    So, let me get this right.

    SOME people see gang patches and become afraid.

    Although there is nothing to fear except fear itself.

    So, let’s make sure that the people who currently are unafraid of gang patches become afraid by making them a symbol of fear and banning them.

    Yep, I can see that solving a whole lot of problems.

    Shame that these fuck knuckles in Parliament can’t address genuine issues, like poverty, low wages, lack of economic growth, a devastated and decaying Christchurch, theft of property, and so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    Somehow I just knew Luke Mutton would be a Mongrel Mob supporter/apologist….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. jaba (2,117 comments) says:

    just think. Hatfield tried to get Minto, Bradford and Sykes into Parliament with him .. we dodged a bullet there but?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tom hunter (4,640 comments) says:

    It’s unfortunate that Harawira has got involved in this discussion, bringing to the table all his pathetic racism against whites: blonde, blue-eyed, really? Someone needs to add the word “Aryan” to his vocabulary, then he could really go to town and say what he thinks about white people with a veneer of intellectual respectability.

    But putting our brown-skinned Ubermensch, and the heaven-sent media distraction of focusing on this personal dustup, to one side, this deserves a serious discussion.

    Aside from anything else, the fact that it is Murray Fucking McCully, one of the most notorious micro-managers and control freaks in Parliament, who is the source of the proposal, should be as much a warning sign as anything else.

    One of the problems with “criminal patches” is that they can be almost anything. On her first day at a Public Junior School in Chicago, my wife and the other teachers had a meeting with a local cop, who was there to inform them of all the gang signs that existed. From memory there were something like 17 such gangs operating in the school area at the time, and their “patches” could be anything from a small red rectangle on a beanie or hoodie, to the bottom of their left trouser leg having one roll-up.

    The bottom line is that this really is a “slippery slope” on freedom of speech. Given the examples above – and assuming that people were serious about efforts against “proclaiming criminality” – such legislation would have to tweaked endlessly to cope with new gang signs. Given that impracticality I could see the temptation arising to pass some generic law where the discretion is left up to the police – rather like the smacking law.

    It’s of immense disappointment to me to find so many right-wingers willing to travel the left-wing path that gummit must do somethin about it – the NZ disease I wrote about the other day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (9,775 comments) says:

    Gee I almost feel bad for being a successful blonde guy. Everything was just handed to me too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Northland Wahine (660 comments) says:

    I’m maori and have patched whanau. I know that under those patches they are still my whanau. However when surrounded by patched members that I do not know, I admit to feeling intimidated.

    Liberals are kidding themselves if they think gang members wear their patches to harbour a sense of community. They wear them to intimidate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. eszett (2,387 comments) says:

    Harawira has threatened to wear a gang patch into Parliament if the bill becomes law,

    That alone should be worth supporting the bill.
    I wonder which patch would he wear?
    And would he have to earn it? Or would they just supply him with one as a promotional gift.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wat dabney (3,746 comments) says:

    To be fair, I am not shaken down by the Mongrol Mob each month and forced to hand over a significant portion of my earnings to it for “redistribution” to its members.

    Another mob does that. Its members don’t wear patches, they wear blue uniforms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    tom hunter pretty well nails it. At what point will we all end up wearing beige Mao jackets?

    Northland wahine, you may well be right when you say “They wear them to intimidate.”, but there are many ways of being intimidating that don’t rely on patches. Some people find moko intimidating. What do we do then? Some people find mosques intimidating. Shall we also ban mosques?

    We can either choose to be intimidated, or we can point, laugh and ridicule grown men and women who behave no better than playground bullies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Paulus (2,581 comments) says:

    Nothing wrong with Gang Patches – the All Blacks and others wear them
    It is the wearing of, predominantly Maori Gang Patches, in public places that have people concerned, as they represent so much that is violent in our society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. flipper (3,903 comments) says:

    Let us ecourage Harawira to wear his patch into the Chamber.

    Parliament TV will get max ratings for their coverage of the Sarg Arms et al removing mummy’s (idiot) clone.
    Given that Harawira would almost certainly resist, his suspension would likely be for a long, long time.

    Incidentally, it would be fun to ascertain approx how many patched gang members voted in each of the last two elections. McLay’s bill would ban them from polling booths in 2014, would it not?

    Fun, fun, fun ……

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

    I agree with Hone, but in my opinion, he is mixing up his arguments as he often does.

    If people want to wear gang patches that is their choice, in the same way that I choose to wear trousers. If you try to ban trouser wearing, I’d be upset. Because I choose to wear them and it isn’t illegal.

    You could argue that most people who commit crimes wear trousers. so it would be sensible to ban trousers, but if I were a criminal I’d just get ‘trouser tattoos’ and do crimes anyway.

    Other people who happen to wear trousers are neither, by visual association criminals, nor are they necessarily sympathetic towards criminals who wear trousers. The just both happen to wear trousers.

    However, if a trouser-wearer is sympathetic to a criminal neither is this an offence unless they act on it or impede legal process. In short, people who wear trousers are:

    free to do so

    free to think what they like, and act how they like if it is inside the law, whether they are wearing trousers at the time, or not.

    Where Hone gets confused is by suggesting this is a race issue, i.e. ‘90% of trouser wearers are brown so therefore. . . but freedom of choice isn’t a statistical measurement, it is a choice or not regardless of how many ‘choose’ to engage in a legal act..

    So one might as well be proposing a ban on trouser wearing, It is similarly against the spirit of what we usually regard freedom of choice, regardless of skin colour, in a democratic nation. To suggest it is a race issue is in opposition to the spirit of the bi-partisan intent of Te Tiriti O Waitangi as Hone would promote it, because that document is dedicated to equality of treatment for all, regardless of race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. kowtow (8,089 comments) says:

    tom hunter

    Certain types of speech have always been unlawful. Treason etc. It is not necessarily left wing to oppose or ban the open expression of criminality/intimidation,which is what these things are.

    I know it is fraught with difficulty and there are many pitfalls and dangers but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go there.

    The fact that these apes are forced to modify their insignia is proof they are not as “staunch ” as they pretend to be.The fact that youngsters wear “colours” to school shows society must take a stand against the adults that the mini morons are copying.

    I’d go further and make membership of these criminal associations a crime and then work up from there. These thugs are outlaws and do not share in the collective values of civil society.

    wat dumbney
    Ban the patch,not discussion around it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Northland Wahine (660 comments) says:

    Luke… moko are not bestowed to be intimidating. Moko is suppose to be a display of mana, of standing within your whanau or iwi. Show me a mother that is proud to stand up in public and announce…” Oh my son is a (insert gang name here) and i’m so proud that he is”.

    They may feel their son has been victimised, they feel the need to blame others, or even themselves that their son is in a gang. But i doubt you will find a mother that is”proud” that her son wears a patch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wat dabney (3,746 comments) says:

    kowtow,

    Unless and until the Mongrol Mob is banned as a criminal organisation, I don’t really see that you have a leg to stand on. Should the Mongrol Mob equally lobby to ban the crucifix? Can we campaign to stop fat women wearing lycra?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. backster (2,135 comments) says:

    I understand that in order to monitor the movements of the’Beast of Blenheim’ the Wanganui Council intend to pass a bylaw that he be required to wear a Mongrel Mob Patch at all times. They will then use their existing bylaw to exile him from their district.
    Good job too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    Northland Wahine (356) Says:
    August 19th, 2012 at 11:01 am
    Luke… moko are not bestowed to be intimidating.

    I am well aware of that, however, some people are still intimidated by it. So, how is that different to a gang patch?

    I am not intimidated by moko or patches, but I can be intimidated by behaviour. Can you spot the difference? Shame that Todd McLay and his boosters can’t.

    [DPF: You miss the link between behaviour and uniforms,. As gang members feature massively in violent and sexual crimes stats, then it is no surprise people see the gang patch as intimidatory.

    Not every Nazi was acting badly all the time, but if you saw someone walk down the street in SS uniform, you'd feel intimidated if you had been a victim of them.

    I'm was against the Wanganui gang patch legislation, but your arguments miss the point]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Northland Wahine (660 comments) says:

    Yes i can luke… And again I’ll state, patches are suppose to intimidate, not so moko. Can you spot that difference? I am aware that there are those that feel intimadated by moko, maybe a lack knowledge. I’m not make excuses for those that fear what they don’t understand. That’s their own journey to make.

    Something to consider… how many patched gang members adorn moko. Not tattatted faces, proper moko, moko that was blessed. Damned if I’ve ever seen one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    What a waste of taxpayer money from these two idiots. One belongs in the Greens and the other in the apartheid dustbin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Kowtow,

    The fact that these apes…

    I wonder if the term ape refers to white gang members. :)

    In any case, a gang patch is an abstract form of expression. Clearly it therefore constitutes “discussion around” criminality and not criminality in and of itself hence it is permissible in a free society. As an analogy cannabis is prohibited but people should be free to advocate reform of that law and using the plant’s leaf as a symbol of that political movement should be absolutely tolerated. That’s if you believe in freedom of expression and that outlawing certain acts does not justify prohibiting discussion around those acts.

    The irony of course is that the same idiots who support laws prohibiting cannabis and other drugs are responsible for contributing to the single most important factor that empowers organized crime. It is not surprising that the same fools also oppose freedom of association and expression. Indeed such considerations would not cause the likes of kowtow to shy away as he no doubt sees himself appointed to arbitrate on what forms of speech are allowed and which are not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chris2 (770 comments) says:

    The irony of it all for Hawawira is that these “gangs”, and the patches they wear, have their origins in white America!

    After World War II some US servicemen returning home from Europe had great difficulty settling back into civilian life and bought motorcycles to drift around the country. This led to the formation of motorcycle gangs, and these spread throughout the world, which included NZ. In Police parlance they are known as OMC’s – Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs.

    So it is indeed interesting that Hawawira is such a strong supporter of a white-mans’ movement.

    Next he’ll be encouraging his daughter to bring home a white boyfriend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wat dabney (3,746 comments) says:

    I’m reminded of the armed assault of Dotcom’s family home, where some particularly sad police officers were reported as ‘”wearing T-shirts, jeans and even a fitted bandana known as a durag, popular in US street culture.’

    Apparently it’s okay for the police to wear the trappings of gangsterism, but not civilians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. MT_Tinman (3,089 comments) says:

    Northern Wahine you’ve lost me.

    I don’t speak nor read stone-age and have obviously missed something.

    I’ve always assumed “Moko” referred to face tattoos adorning Maori, including the traditional tattoos worn by the men that could only be designed to intimidate, particularly in conjunction to the war dance (haka?) that appears to have preceded most full-on battles between tribes.

    This is wrong?

    Please help me understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. kowtow (8,089 comments) says:

    It is the likes of weihana who seek to arbitrate for all and sundry.

    Interestingly ,like Hatfield he brings race to the debate.Thereby changing the focus and seeking the high moral ground.

    A gang patch is far from an abstraction. It is a powerful expression of intimidation and an identifier of the wearer as a member of a criminal conspiracy.

    The single most important factor that “empowers” organised crime is the individual criminal who chooses to associate with other criminals to take part in crime.Simple.

    The use of insulting words such as idiots and fools in a discusion such as this does weihana no credit.

    I support freedom of law abiding citizens to associate and express themselves. Those freedoms do not extend to criminal behaviour or conspiracies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. wat dabney (3,746 comments) says:

    Those freedoms do not extend to criminal behaviour or conspiracies.

    Way too simplistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Northland Wahine (660 comments) says:

    MT… yes you are… moko can be worn by men and women. And there is protocol that must be followed to be bestowed moko.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. marcw (240 comments) says:

    @ Luke Mutton 11:17

    “Not every Nazi was acting badly all the time, but if you saw someone walk down the street in SS uniform, you’d feel intimidated if you had been a victim of them.”

    You would appear to contradict your own argument. So you are saying wearing Nazi SS uniforms in public is OK because they don’t act badly all the time? Many of us know that gang patches are one of many intimidatory tactics used by these criminals, and we know that when they are alone they are cowards of the highest order. I am intimidated by these thugs because I know that members of the group are thugs and bullies, and why should we have to tolerate them in our community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tom hunter (4,640 comments) says:

    Perhaps we could pass legislation whereby any wearer of a gang patch must instead wear a pink tutu!

    Sure it would be just as much an example of a micro-managing, repressive state – but at least we could laugh, which would also address Luke’s supposed remedy:

    We can either choose to be intimidated, or we can point, laugh and ridicule grown men and women who behave no better than playground bullies.

    Because I’m sure that Luke points, laughs and ridicules gang members whenever the opportunity arises, the brave soul.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (8,211 comments) says:

    “Because I’m sure that Luke points, laughs and ridicules gang members whenever the opportunity arises, the brave soul.”

    Thanks for the laff Tom, you’re a gem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. UpandComer (527 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton – people find gang patches intimidating because the cretinous people wearing them wear them to intimidate, and their behavior justifies being intimidated. I would know, I lived with a white mongrel mob gang member (one who was running a brothel upstairs, as I soon found out, and accordingly left after informing the police), and I was intimidated. Gang patches are adolescent markers of ‘danger’ and ‘separation’. Mokos are fine, they are just body art. Moko’s are a sign of fealty to cultural roots. Gang patches are a sign of fealty to a group-law outside of societies.

    All the people on here passing around bullshit about ‘it’s just the same thing as banning trousers’ and ‘some people are intimidated by mosques’ need to grow the fuck up. Gangs aren’t a theoretical exercise in libertarian rights, nor are bad actions on their part some deviation from a moderate majority (i.e. muslim) – bad actions by gangs are the fucking normative action – they are crime groups – that’s it. So as my gang member flat-mate would say, fuck up.

    As for Harawira, he is a just a lazy useless feckless hypocrite. Like Winston, if he was constructive he could use his charisma for something decent, but he’s just like some dickhead gang member giving everyone the fingers and mouthing off about how ‘it’s all societies fault that I’m a dickhead’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Luke Mutton (247 comments) says:

    marcw, you need to learn to read between the [ ]

    The words you attribute to me are not mine, they are the words of DPF.

    DPF, you claim I miss the link between behaviour and uniform, but cannot see it yourself. Your words “you’d feel intimidated if you had been a victim of them.” shows a clear link between the uniform and the behaviour. Not everyone in the world was intimidated by the SS, in fact many American, French and British businesses had long and productive relationships with the SS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    waiting for JORIS DE BRES at Race Relations to make a comment about this anti-whites racism in 4,3,2,1…[I died of old age]….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. tom hunter (4,640 comments) says:

    bad actions by gangs are the fucking normative action – they are crime groups – that’s it.

    Indeed – and going after the patches they wear is a simple acknowledgement that we’ve failed to go after the real sources of their intimidatory power. I hate to repeat myself, but what will we do when they get a different patch?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redbaiter (8,211 comments) says:

    Harawira is right in one thing, McLay is a dickhead.

    Like most in National, not truly understanding how they themselves, by clinging to and advocating for socially destructive left wing political ideas, aid and abet the left in bringing problems like Maori gangs into our society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. iMP (2,349 comments) says:

    The real crime is the silence of Maoridom over the long-standing social harm Maori gangs do to NZ, especially their young men and women; and WHY young Maori feel so alienated they have to join a gang. Is whanau really “far now” for Gen Y Maori. Where’s Harawira on that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kowtow (8,089 comments) says:

    wat

    “way too simplistic.”

    In that case I’m waiting for some deep insightful,thoughtful contribution from you,go on knock yourself out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. UpandComer (527 comments) says:

    Might I also say that Harawira is only representative of a minority of Maori, the ones you see protesting at Waitangi. There is a big constructive majority that are sick of his useless theatrics and want to get on with things. Funnily enough, those ones want to work with National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Peter (1,682 comments) says:

    Agree with Tom Hunter.

    It’s sad to see many lovers-of-liberty turn into Banderton-esque control freaks when a patch is involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. dime (9,775 comments) says:

    Kowtow – are you a cop hater?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Is there a weaker MP than McClay?

    How can he justify a backbench salary?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kowtow (8,089 comments) says:

    There is a world of difference between free speech/expression and the defence of criminal activity.

    Perhaps the crux is in the intent of the speech/expression.

    As I see it,gang patches are an open declaration of criminality. The intent is one of intimidation ,fear ,threat of violence etc all the things that go with the world of gangs.

    It is not a pure case of liberty or freedom it is the intent behind it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. kowtow (8,089 comments) says:

    dime

    Cop hater? I don’t understand the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Kowtow (2,602) Says:
    August 19th, 2012 at 11:57 am

    A gang patch is far from an abstraction. It is a powerful expression of intimidation and an identifier of the wearer as a member of a criminal conspiracy.

    Problem is your interpretation is subjective and therefore not a reasonable basis upon which to ban such expression. On the same basis we should outlaw anyone promoting the Green Party logo since that organization can be associated with defacing of election billboards. Likewise, the cannabis leaf (as a symbol) can be banned by the same logic since it is associated with the illegal activity of possessing cannabis. It is not enough to simply reference an ambiguous association with criminal activity since that pretty much removes all ability to talk about such activity thereby extinguishing any open and free discussion.

    While you are right that not all forms of expression are tolerated (e.g. threats, child pornography etc.) there is generally always a high threshold when it comes to prohibiting speech because the freedom to express oneself is the most fundamental right in a democracy. It is reasonable to expect that any prohibition is based upon demonstrable harm from the speech itself (and not any supposed harm in relation to what the speech advocates).

    The notion that the speech is harmful is based purely upon your subjective assessment that it’s meant to intimidate you. However, I’ve encountered gang patches and never found them to be intimidating. Moreover, there is no objective standard of communication upon which one can interpret the patch as a threat. Objectively all it communicates is membership of a gang which does not imply a direct threat to any particular person.

    The single most important factor that “empowers” organised crime is the individual criminal who chooses to associate with other criminals to take part in crime.Simple.

    The classic head-up-one’s-arse approach. As they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    In any case, while you may arguably ascribe moral culpability to the individual who chooses to violate the law, culpability and empowerment are not the same thing. The individual drug dealer does not create the market which they exploit therefore your statement is demonstrably fallacious.

    The use of insulting words such as idiots and fools in a discusion such as this does weihana no credit.

    True, but they are accurate descriptions nonetheless. :)

    I support freedom of law abiding citizens to associate and express themselves. Those freedoms do not extend to criminal behaviour or conspiracies.

    Except that the wearing of a patch constitutes neither criminal behaviour or a conspiracy. It neither facilitates criminal behaviour nor any conspiracy of such. It is an expression of membership of an organization that is associated with criminal behaviour. But such generalized connections are hardly a valid basis upon which to prohibit speech as I have shown by the analogies already employed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    The problem isn’t the gang patches. It is the gang members.

    If these assholes were convicted and given proper sentences, they wouldn’t be free to roam the roads and destroy lives in small town NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    kowtow (2,605) Says:
    August 19th, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    There is a world of difference between free speech/expression and the defence of criminal activity.

    No there is not. By that logic no one may advocate to abolish certain crimes from statute since any such advocacy is inherently a defense of the activity thus prohibited.

    Perhaps the crux is in the intent of the speech/expression.

    As I see it,gang patches are an open declaration of criminality.

    Which is a generalization. Freedom of expression encompasses the right to support criminal activity in a general sense. It excludes the right to incite specific criminal actions. For instance, if hitting your child is a crime, it is quite legitimate to advocate support for hitting children in general. It may, however, be illegal to incite a particular person to hit their child. ;)

    The intent is one of intimidation ,fear ,threat of violence etc all the things that go with the world of gangs.

    It is not a pure case of liberty or freedom it is the intent behind it.

    Except you haven’t proven any intent, you’ve merely assumed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    tristanb (874) Says:
    August 19th, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    The problem isn’t the gang patches. It is the gang members.

    If these assholes were convicted and given proper sentences, they wouldn’t be free to roam the roads and destroy lives in small town NZ.

    Yeah, just like they do in the United States. Long sentences and they have no gangs and no gang problem. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    [DPF: You miss the link between behaviour and uniforms,. As gang members feature massively in violent and sexual crimes stats, then it is no surprise people see the gang patch as intimidatory…

    Maori are about half the prison population but a much smaller proportion of the population. Does that justify one being intimidated whenever they walk past a Maori on the street? What is the statistical threshold where one is justifiability intimidated? :)

    Not every Nazi was acting badly all the time, but if you saw someone walk down the street in SS uniform, you’d feel intimidated if you had been a victim of them…

    If someone walked down the street in an SS uniform a more reasonable feeling would be offense rather than intimidation because intimidation presupposes they are ACTUALLY an SS soldier which is absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. tom hunter (4,640 comments) says:

    Kowtow

    As I’m sure you are well aware, this is not something that gets just the panties of the predictable groups in a knot. Take a look at what the folks are saying about this at ye old “hardline” right-wing site Crusader Rabbit – which you’ve gleefully frequented on other issues: Kiwis neither understand nor want liberty

    The answer to their fears is always more laws and regulations. Which may be all well and good, until they wake up one morning and discover that what they regarded as perfectly ordinary yesterday, is today verboten…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Keeping Stock (10,231 comments) says:

    Luke Mutton said

    So, let me get this right.

    SOME people see gang patches and become afraid.

    Although there is nothing to fear except fear itself.

    Luke; as you may be aware, I live in Wanganui. Each morning, I go to a suburban post shop to pick up the mail for our businesses. Prior to the Borrows/Laws Gang Insignia Act being passed, and the Wanganui District Council’s by-law, a group of young gang members and associates used to swagger around wearing patches, colours and other identifying apparel, clearly intimidating all and sundry. Once the by-law took effect, they vanished almost overnight. Many of them left Wanganui. Police reported a drop of around 25% in gang-related crime.

    The area has a lot of elderly people living nearby. Once the gang members left, they started to return, and shop owners in the shopping centre have told me that foot traffic increased significantly.

    The High Court subsequently overturned the Wanganui by-law; not because it was unconstitutional to ban patches, but only because the council’s application of the ban was not specific enough. But oddly, the gang presence hasn’t returned to this particular shopping centre, for which everyone is very pleased. And the WDC will soon have a new by-law in place.

    The Wanganui example was one of a community standing up and telling gangs that they were not welcome here. And despite much scepticism, it actually worked. On that basis, I support Todd McClay’s Bill, and if Hone Harawira was serious about improving the lot of those who work for central and local government, so would he instead of his childish name-calling.

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/hone-predicatable.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Redbaiter (8,211 comments) says:

    Careful Tom, you’re really going over to the wild side.

    (Crusader Rabbit is the best blog)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. kowtow (8,089 comments) says:

    tom h

    Look, I take your point about slippery slope and more laws and regs etc. Indeed I share that view on many issues and I do think gummint has got too big,intrusive, etc in far too many fields beyond its traditional remit.

    However on this particular one I have no problem with legislating against specific ,and I emphasise ,criminal behaviour. The expression is already criminal in intent,so in a way it is not creating a new crime ie wearing a patch it is extending the legislative arsenal against existing crime and criminal behaviour.

    Another example might be proceeds of crime legislation,another way of tackling the problem.And no doubt there were many who felt that was a step too far by the state too.

    As far as I’m concerned the state has an obligation to act against criminality. It always has,that is a proper role of the state.To protect law abiding citizens.

    I enjoy the frankness of CR,it’s refreshing. Redbaiter too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. lilman (947 comments) says:

    My wifes relations are patched,two fully patched and 2 prospects,they are not welcome in my house,patch or no patch.
    I have told them twice at family gatherings because of who they are and what they represent to leave.
    They bitched and moaned ,other family members abused me for being a honky white prick,but Im still alive and they know not to come around my family.
    Simply put – peices of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Liberty (256 comments) says:

    Todd Mcclay is making a mountain out of a mole hill .
    What government depts. Is he talking about. Most are closed off to the peasants.
    So we get down to the Police, Income and support and hospitals. The hospitals they tend to visit on a stretcher so it is not really a problem. Police and income and support would be a second home for most of them.
    The main issues is what is such a big deal over a patch. And this anti gang paranoia. When gangs are not the problem.
    It is what the individual. (who may be a gang member) Get s up to. There is no dispute a large number end up in court.
    This also applies to Tattooed individuals who have tribe connections A very high percentage end up in court. There is a lot of symmetry between the two groups. A number of people find tattoos intimidating
    So is Todd Mcclay going to ban Tattoos as well? Some find a tattoo just as intimidating as a Patch.
    Banning patches might give the rednecks the warm fussy . But it is really a pointless exercise.
    If Todd McClay wants to make himself useful. He would be far better sorting out the weak arse Judges.
    So when the police do exactly what the community have been asking for. They clean up the streets
    Of vagrants and low lives. The Judge is more concerned about some pin pricking technicality. Then the rights for Joe citizen to walk down the street safely.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/7460799/Raid-on-Red-Devils-unlawful-judge
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/5587555/Beggar-considers-victory-laps-after-ban-removed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pete George (23,413 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock: The Wanganui example was one of a community standing up and telling gangs that they were not welcome here. And despite much scepticism, it actually worked.

    Do you know if it reduced gang patch wearing, or if it moved the problem somewhere else? Has any research been done on the effects of that ban?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Keeping Stock (10,231 comments) says:

    Check this link out Pete:

    http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/police-say-wanganui039s-gang-patch-ban-working/5/56863

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. tom hunter (4,640 comments) says:

    As far as I’m concerned the state has an obligation to act against criminality.

    I could not agree more. But if banning a jacket patch is an “act against criminality”, then we’ve lost the plot of what crime is and how to fight it.

    It is ephemeral and a danger to free speech, as much because of what it will entice others to do for their favourite hobby horses, as for what it is directly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,413 comments) says:

    The police report link doesn';t work any more.

    Police report “that the bylaw has contributed to:

    * overt gang presence being less noticeable by the general public

    * a reduction in levels of intimidation for the community

    * a reduction in confrontation between gangs.”

    Along with other effective Police actions this has led to an estimated 15% fall in the number of gang members in Wanganui.

    That is the reported effect on Wanganui, but it doesn’t say if it reducedd path wearing and gang membership or they just moved to somewhere else. I think it’s important to know which.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. kowtow (8,089 comments) says:

    tom h

    This is a long standing, and as the link below says, vexatious issue.Not directly but still on topic.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9264748/Why-should-an-insult-be-against-the-law.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/resources/whanganui-gang-insignia-fact-sheet.pdf

    It doesn’t have any figures aside from prosecutions for gang insignia. However, it does state:

    The estimated number of gang members in Whanganui has reduced between March 2009 and March 2010, with evidence that some gang members have relocated to nearby locations. This relocation may be due to the implementation of the bylaw in Whanganui, but also strong anti-gang operations by Police have contributed to gang members moving from the Whanganui area or receiving custodial sentences.

    Statistics NZ reports total offense rates for the Whanganui area as:

    2008/09: 2902
    2009/10: 3191
    2010/11: 2914

    So a 10% increase followed by a 8.7% decrease

    National total offense rates are:

    2008/09: 233125
    2009/10: 235211
    2010/11: 217151

    So a 0.9% increase followed by a 7.7% decrease.

    It’s hard to see how banning gang insignia is the answer to addressing the issue of criminality based on these figures, notwithstanding that they are unadjusted figures. Any effect they have would appear to be marginal at best and if one takes into account the fact that gang members appear to be relocating then in a general sense it would appear they have almost no effect on crime at all, they just move the problem along.

    Perhaps it is true that little old ladies feel better about going to the shopping mall because gang members don’t have their “swagger” on. But it does not appear that the law has had a significant effect on criminality as such. Keeping Stock states that police report a 25% drop in “gang-related crime”. What constitutes “gang-related”? And why if it is so significant does a 25% drop not manifest itself significantly in overall crime statistics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Further to the above figures the adjusted rates for population are:

    Wanganui (per 10,000)

    08/09: 538.9
    09/10: 591.5
    10/11: 538.8

    National (per 10,000)

    08/09: 543.6
    09/10: 542.0
    10/11: 494.2

    Which doesn’t really change the picture at all. Wanganui went up and then down about the same amount. On a national level the offending rate was constant then fell.

    Surely, if gang offending is such a large part of criminality in general, and we are told that gang-related offending has dropped by one-quarter then surely this should manifest itself clearly in overall crime rates.

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/tools_and_services/tools/TableBuilder/recorded-crime-statistics/ASOC-apprehensions-fiscal-year-statistics.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Mobile Michael (438 comments) says:

    In 2007 Pita Sharples wanted patches banned everywhere. Hone didn’t have much to say back then.

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/gangs/news/article.cfm?c_id=217&objectid=10421380

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. wat dabney (3,746 comments) says:

    kowtow,

    In that case I’m waiting for some deep insightful,thoughtful contribution from you,go on knock yourself out.

    The point is that countless oppressive states and regimes have criminialised the exercise of numerous freedoms over the years.
    Your simplistic argument – “freedoms do not extend to criminal behaviour or conspiracies.” – favours the oppressors in these very common situations, rather than the millions of victims.

    Just because something is in the criminal code does not automatically make it wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kimble (4,441 comments) says:

    I wouldnt think twice about opposing the patch ban, if the people against it weren’t so racist.

    Is it racist to ask why Maoris people are more racist than white people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Nostalgia-NZ (5,077 comments) says:

    ‘Wanganui (per 10,000)

    08/09: 538.9
    09/10: 591.5
    10/11: 538.8

    National (per 10,000)

    08/09: 543.6
    09/10: 542.0
    10/11: 494.2′

    Sort of puts the hysteria into perspective. I noted Keeping Stocks anecdotal evidence in support, which is probably shown now, in light of these figures, of how people felt differently rather than what was different. So I guess a law change would be about how people feel, bloody remarkable.

    ‘lilman (300) Says:
    August 19th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
    My wifes relations are patched,two fully patched and 2 prospects,they are not welcome in my house,patch or no patch.
    I have told them twice at family gatherings because of who they are and what they represent to leave.
    They bitched and moaned ,other family members abused me for being a honky white prick,but Im still alive and they know not to come around my family.
    Simply put – peices of shit.’

    Something else interesting on the subject of patches is how they are decried in here to represent all things evil and so I guess it could be assumed that with their disappearance will also disappear all things evil. However lilman reports that some gangsters don’t even understand what the word gang means, or the phrases: ‘gang up,’ ‘gang tackled’ or even ‘press ganged.’ So perhaps we do need a law after all, one that requires all gang members to act by a certain code of criminality just to keep the wary folk in suburban shopping centres anxious and Michael Laws frothing at the mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. HB (301 comments) says:

    I just went to the local Gull station here in Hastings to exchange my gas bottle. One of the other customers was dressed in ordinary clothes apart from a red scarf he had tied around his knee. Quite obvious what his affiliation is.
    Also if you drive through Flaxmere just about everyone is wearing red. Even the little ones.
    TBH I don’t often see many patches around in the last few years I have lived here. Colours are an everyday sort of thing so it doesn’t really worry me. When I do see a patch it is infrequent enough that it does cause me concern. It sort of says to me that usually they won’t wear them in public but when they do it is for a reason. The only reason I can think of is ‘intimidation’ or something very similar. The last one I saw was at Pak n Save Hastings. It was a MMM Porirua patch and he was strutting around like he owned the place. You could see most people in the supermarket trying to avoid him and avoid eye contact so its not just me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. kowtow (8,089 comments) says:

    wat 441

    Brilliantly in depth and insightful……….not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Other_Andy (2,551 comments) says:

    John Hatfield….
    Why give this sad individual airtime?

    This sign on a hand dryer in a Warkworth bathroom says it all.

    http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201233/SCCZEN_160812SPLAIR1_460x230.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. David Garrett (6,900 comments) says:

    Lots of comment here….I wonder whether most noted that amongst the dross, was the observation that gang crime in Wanganui dropped significantly after the gang patch ban?

    Gangs are criminal organizations…whether they be ethnic gangs (of whichever colour) or motorcycle gangs masquerading as “clubs”… the only sensible reaction is merciless extermination of them…or since we are all too soft for that, making their lives as difficult as possible…

    Hamnida: show your balls and tell us your real name…you know mine…I live at 19 Kanohi Road Kaukapakapa…where do you live?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Nostalgia-NZ (5,077 comments) says:

    Check out Weihana at 4.11 DG. Can’t see anywhere that has been contradicted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. KH (694 comments) says:

    I was quite interested in the colourblind constitutional move.
    No special incentives, subsidies etc on the grounds of ethnicity.
    So by definition is non racist.
    Peter Sharples is against it. haha.
    Even Hone couldn’t think that a colourblind approach was racist.
    But he would say it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Kia ora David – Hamnida is my name. I live in Milford, so probably an hours drive from you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. hmmokrightitis (1,579 comments) says:

    A really good mate of mine, who I went through school and Uni with is the quietest most shy ginga on the planet. Married, 2 kids, accountant. Sadly for the large Black Power guy we met many moons ago Steve was also a 6th dan black belt in karate, and a thai kick boxer of no small repute.

    Steve is small where Im tall. BP bloke took a swing at me as Steve and I left a pub. I saw it coming and ducked, Steve blocked it. BP boy pulled a knife. Steve broke him, nearly in two. I didn’t even see it happen, and I was right next to them. It was over in a heartbeat. His mates pissed themselves laughing.

    But I can also understand how people feel intimidated by them. Freedom of expression and all, but we should be allowed to walk our streets without fear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    “BP boy” – no racism there.

    Didn’t know the internet and blogs existed in 1920s USA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. hmmokrightitis (1,579 comments) says:

    LOL, such a tosser. He was around 18, so yes, he was a boy. Who said he was black or white, or what colour I am ham you dork? FTR, Ngai Tahu. But thanks for asking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Bob R (1,358 comments) says:

    ***Lots of comment here….I wonder whether most noted that amongst the dross, was the observation that gang crime in Wanganui dropped significantly after the gang patch ban?…***

    @ David Garrett,

    That is interesting. It makes me think of how cigarette smoking apparently has dropped in response to legislation making it more difficult or inconvenient to be a smoker.

    If Turia, Harawira & co support those anti-smoking measures why don’t they also support anti-gang measures? Do they think that gangs and crime are a bad thing for Maori or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Bob R (1,358 comments) says:

    btw. it always amuses me that Harawira attacks people proposing things he doesn’t like as “racist”, but reveals a deep seated hatred of white people with his own comments. Idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Nostalgia-NZ (5,077 comments) says:

    ‘hmmokrightitis (740) Says:
    August 19th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
    A really good mate of mine, who I went through school and Uni with is the quietest most shy ginga on the planet. Married, 2 kids, accountant. Sadly for the large Black Power guy we met many moons ago Steve was also a 6th dan black belt in karate, and a thai kick boxer of no small repute.

    Steve is small where Im tall. BP bloke took a swing at me as Steve and I left a pub. I saw it coming and ducked, Steve blocked it. BP boy pulled a knife. Steve broke him, nearly in two. I didn’t even see it happen, and I was right next to them. It was over in a heartbeat. His mates pissed themselves laughing.

    But I can also understand how people feel intimidated by them. Freedom of expression and all, but we should be allowed to walk our streets without fear.’

    What crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. tom hunter (4,640 comments) says:

    Hamnida (307) Says:
    August 19th, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    “BP boy” – no racism there.

    Didn’t know the internet and blogs existed in 1920s USA.

    hmmokrightitis (740) Says:
    August 19th, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    LOL, such a tosser. He was around 18, so yes, he was a boy. Who said he was black or white, or what colour I am ham you dork? FTR, Ngai Tahu. But thanks for asking.

    Oh dear – that’s the second time in a week (after Falafula) that Hamnida’s been caught out making racist assumptions. Further proof that ignorance and bigotry run together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Bob R (1,358 comments) says:

    Another thing Harawira perhaps highlights is the downside of ethnic diversity. As Professor Robert Putman has pointed out, people tend to trust each other less. In this case, the law disproportionately would affect a given ethnic group so you get people assuming that that it is ethnically motivated. The upshot is that multiculturalism makes democracy harder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Griff (7,184 comments) says:

    Another statement by a so called maori leader that adds stature to the maori gang culture.
    Meanwhile back in south auckland all the social workers know what gang family means……. Unless the leadership admit the savage and barbarous nature of this subculture gangs will continue to have a toxic effect on maoridom.

    If you are a member of a criminal network you forgo some human rights.

    The right of freedom of speech if that freedom assists your criminal endeavors
    A gang patch is criminal brand advertising endorsing and abetting criminal behavior

    The right to associate if that is to promulgate criminal endeavor. If someone is convicted of a gang related crime they should be banned from associating with known gang members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. V (704 comments) says:

    Its really pretty simple, gang memebrs should be prosecuted for the crimes they commit, not the clothes they wear. Any private establishment has the right to refuse entry to those not conforming to the dress requirements. Beyond that there are no additional laws required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. David Garrett (6,900 comments) says:

    V: Tell that to the young mother trying to comfort her terror stricken kids outside the Wanganui WINZ because two of “the boys” are strutting up and down trying to taunt the other to make the first move…or the parents and kids who instantly left Wanganui parks when carloads of patch wearers arrive at a playground, and said parents know that that means a carload of the other idiots will soon arrive for a “rumble”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. hmmokrightitis (1,579 comments) says:

    Oh dear nostalgia, really, its crap. Well, if you say so, it must be so, right? Or not so much.

    “However lilman reports that some gangsters don’t even understand what the word gang means” And shits should be given by whom for what particular reason? Because uneducated morons dont understand the english language, we should feel empathy?

    Tell you what, lets find a situation where you feel intimidated, and see if youre good with the fact that the people knowingly intimidating dont know how to spell or comprehend makes the slightest difference to your demeanour.

    Yeah, thought not. Back in your box.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Keep the Beast locked up.

    Arrest him because he cannot guarantee the parole board he won’t reoffend.

    Simple, if a policeman or government official asked me, “Hamnida, you must attend classes or else we think you will reoffend.” And I just said “No, get stuffed”. Surely I could not expect to be released.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. tvb (4,302 comments) says:

    Harawera sees an attack on gangs as an attack on Maori. And then he elevates that into racism the holocaust and everything else. I doubt McLay is doing any harm to his political future with this bill and Harawera’s comments are helping. The gangs ate tolerated providing they stay out of sight and don’t get into the face of middle NZ. McLay’s bill will help ensure that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    David Garrett (2,497) Says:
    August 20th, 2012 at 7:19 am

    V: Tell that to the young mother trying to comfort her terror stricken kids outside the Wanganui WINZ because two of “the boys” are strutting up and down trying to taunt the other to make the first move…or the parents and kids who instantly left Wanganui parks when carloads of patch wearers arrive at a playground, and said parents know that that means a carload of the other idiots will soon arrive for a “rumble”…

    So what’s wrong with sections 3, 4, 5A, and 7 of the Summary Offences Act 1981?

    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.