Mitchell on gang patch bill

May 16th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

speaking on Todd McClay’s bill to prohibit being worn inside government buildings:

I would just like to talk about one of my first contacts with gangs. It was as a police dog handler working in Rotorua. For those who have lived in Rotorua, who are either in the police or even just as residents and members of the community, will be very aware of the old Mongrel Mob headquarters on Sala Street. When I first started there we had two young ladies come to the police station obviously in a terribly distressed state, and, in fact, one of them probably to this day has not recovered from what she had to endure at the hands of the Mongrel Mob at their pad on Sala Street. What had happened to them is that the Mongrel Mob had two young prospects and one of them was her cousin. As part of their initiation, as part of their pathway towards earning a gang patch, they had been instructed to entice these two young girls—15 and 16—down to the gang pad. Once they got them down there, they then proceeded to put them on what the gang members called the block, and they were gang-raped by patched gang members and the prospects were forced or encouraged to rape them also. So I just want to be very clear that when we are in this House and we are talking about gang patches, we actually understand clearly what a gang patch means and what it signifies. What it means is that when you see a gang member walking around patched up with a gang patch on, it is telling you, it is telling us, the rest of the people in the community, that they have committed crimes against us, and that they have probably committed violent crimes against us.

Gang patches are a form on intimidation. Now I didn’t support the law change for Wanganui District Council as that sought to prohibit patches in public anywhere – and that goes too far. But I think the Government has every right to ban them in buildings such as WINZ offices and courts.

Mr Goff got up and said that currently there are laws available to deal with gang members who decide to wear their patches and intimidate people. He quoted the Trespass Act . Well, what happens with the Trespass Act is that someone has to trespass a gang member. I am telling you now that people are intimidated. Who is going to stand up and say: “I am going to take a step and I am going to trespass someone.”? We are removing that from them. We are removing the intimidation and fear from that person with this piece of legislation.

I’d rather not be the person who has to trespass a gang member to their face.

There is one submission that I do want to refer back to. It was made by Jacob Te Kurapa from the Murupara Area School . Murupara, of course, is in Mr McClay’s electorate. Murupara has got social issues that it is constantly facing and tackling. It has a big gang presence down there with the Black Power , the Tribesmen , the Mongrel Mob . In his submission he said: “Children and students do not need to see gang insignia plastered about our school they need to be protected from it.

Gang patches should have no place in schools.

National, ACT, United Future and NZ First voted for the bill’s second reading. Labour, Greens, Maori and Mana voted against – defending the right of gang members to wear patches in schools etc.

Tags: ,

63 Responses to “Mitchell on gang patch bill”

  1. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    But I think the Government has every right to ban them in buildings such as WINZ offices and courts.

    You can not wear them in Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. mikemikemikemike (312 comments) says:

    Why are WINZ offices any more of a public place than a park? I’d sooner see a gang patch at a government office with security guards and CCTV than at a public park or sports field.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RRM (9,459 comments) says:

    Rotorua old boy here.. Mr Mitchell is correct in everything he says.

    Gang scum have declared war on New Zealand society.

    IMHO they should be rounded up by the Army, taken into a forest and shot.

    (YES KEA I know how that sounds.)

    New Zealand would be the better for it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RF (1,272 comments) says:

    Animals who have no place in our society.

    Unfortunately the limp wristed hand wringers support these useless pieces of filth.

    A pox on Labour, Greens, Maori & Mana for not supporting this.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (7,626 comments) says:

    This is just worthless side stepping the issue crap. If these bastards are wearing patches that signify that they have committed crimes then what the fuck are they doing walking the streets?

    Jesus Christ on a bike our politicians are a bunch of piss weak cowards.

    Jail these fucking arseholes for the real crimes they commit, not for wearing their childish fucking patches.

    Utterly hopeless.

    MclLay is hopeless. National are hopeless. Our parliament is hopeless.

    Patches… pfft. What an utter waste of fucking time and money.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    RRM, ok :)

    First we need to define what a “Gang” is. I reckon the biggest gang is the police. I also think rugby thugs are a gang.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mara (726 comments) says:

    David Farrar, “I’d rather not be the person who has to trespass a gang member to his face.” Quite. But the cops WOULD if only the windy, appeasing Govt. had the balls to require it.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    So Mark tells us that: Once they got them down there, they then proceeded to put them on what the gang members called the block, and they were gang-raped by patched gang members and the prospects were forced or encouraged to rape them also.

    At which point I assume the police proceeded to arrest all involved and put them behind bars for a every long time? As the wearer of the patch was behind jails, the patch suddenly wasn’t visible any more!

    Or was the police too afraid?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. James Stephenson (2,033 comments) says:

    Or was the police too afraid?

    You’ve tried using “everybody knows that what goes on” and “a man in the pub told me” as evidence in a Court of Law have you?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Zapper (926 comments) says:

    Hey Kea, which rugby teams are an organised crime group?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. smttc (692 comments) says:

    I really hope John Key and National are in a position after the next election to tell the Maori Party to fuck off. Bloody useless self serving support partner. I had great hopes the Maori Party would do good things in government. But they have proved to fuckin’ useless.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. OTGO (512 comments) says:

    Gang patches to NZ gangs are the 3 piece suits and fedoras to the Italian mafia. Maybe the NZ gangs should have gone for a well dressed kiwi look. You know something like black Havianas, cutoffs and red or blue cotton tees. They would’ve still been recognisable as gang members but nobody would’ve cared.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. rouppe (916 comments) says:

    RRM…

    I also am a Rotorua old boy. I well remember the 70′s being a time when walking down Tutanekai St you had to cross the street every time you saw a bunch of gang members coming the other way. If you didn’t, you were shoved out onto the road anyway.

    Fortunately I lived out in an eastern suburb and didn’t have to be presented with this very often. I left school and went to Hamilton for university study, and then directly to Wellington where I have lived since. I have no nostalgic memories of that place whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Colville (2,081 comments) says:

    Hey Kea, which rugby teams are an organised crime group?

    Have you seen the Highlanders play? they aint very organised!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. kowtow (7,631 comments) says:

    Criminal speech is not free speech.

    If you support banning in taxpayer owned buildings,well we own the streets too!…….or do we?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Keeping Stock (10,100 comments) says:

    I’ve blogged these sentiments before, but what the heck. They are no less valid today as they were a few years ago.

    I pick up the mail each day from a suburban PO in Wanganui. Before the Wanganui District Council passed its gang patch gang, there used to be a group of young punks who strutted up and down the shopping centre as though they owned the place. They used their gang regalia to intimidate shoppers, in an area with a large elderly population.

    When the patch ban was rolled out, the gang disappeared quite literally overnight. Within a few weeks the centre started to improve markedly, and the old folk have returned.

    Wanganui’s patch ban was subsequently overturned by the courts, but the gangs have not returned to this particular area, or if they have, the fear factor has been blunted. I have no doubt whatsoever that the patch ban will work, and commend Todd McClay for pushing it through. Conversely, I have nothing but contempt for those who want to give gangs the space to grow, and it was especially galling to hear the Greens’ “human rights spokesperson” Jan Logie speaking yesterday; what about the rights of law-abiding citizens, especially the elderly to not be intimidated Ms Logie? Do they no longer count?

    I didn’t agree with a lot of what Michael Laws did whilst mayor of Wanganui. On this issue though, he was right on the money.

    Disclaimer: Also posted on WO’s thread on this issue

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nigel Kearney (864 comments) says:

    It’s an item of clothing FFS. If you ban it in a limited area, it’s easiest for them to just go somewhere else. That doesn’t mean the problem is solved. Telling a story about some girls being raped in a private building to justify restricting what people are allowed to wear on their clothing in a public building is the sort of thing a politician does when they don’t have a real argument to justify what they are proposing.

    This is actually like the plain packing of cigarettes. Politicians don’t have the balls to do something real and effective about the problem, so they just pass some minor ineffective law then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kowtow (7,631 comments) says:

    kearney and smoking

    How funny is that?The Racist party want to stop everyone from smoking ,a ban,but they want to support criminals proclaiming criminality.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Jack5 (4,589 comments) says:

    More evidence that, with the economy likely to tighten and employment to rise as NZers return from Australia, law and order is the way the Nats can head off the Labour-Melons.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Judith (7,626 comments) says:

    I’d rather not be the person who has to trespass a gang member to their face.

    You can only be intimidated if you LET them. They are in reality just patches of fabric and paint/stitching.
    It is what we allow them to signify and the fear we allow them to induce that is the intimidation aspect.

    As long as we give them that space – we are part of the process.

    I agree with this bill – for those that are intimidated by the symbol, they need to feel safer but I question the idiocy of people that think a gang member without his patch is a ‘safer’ person. In some ways these patches identify the people we should be wary of – perhaps not a bad thing.

    Let us remember that symbols have throughout history affected the world, the swastiker, the symbols of the illuminati and so on. Removing them will not stop the violence – it will only make good people feel better.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    …they had been instructed to entice these two young girls—15 and 16—down to the gang pad. Once they got them down there, they then proceeded to put them on what the gang members called the block, and they were gang-raped by patched gang members and the prospects were forced or encouraged to rape them also.

    It seems quite ridiculous that the justification for banning an item of clothing is that two girls were gang-raped. It’s almost as if the argument is “we can’t do anything about gang rape, but if you ban some clothing then we can”.

    Also, the suggestion appears to be that because some gang members gang-raped two young girls then anyone who also wears the patch is guilty of the crime by association. Does this mean all Police are rapists because Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum are convicted rapists?

    Gang patches are a form on intimidation

    David, this is easily disproved. All you need to do is put me in one and I guarantee you that with my boney white arms poking out no one is going to be intimidated.

    What people are intimidated by is the person and no amount of banning patches is going to change these people.

    You’d be better off taking the drug trade out of their control.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    kowtow (4,371) Says:
    May 16th, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    Criminal speech is not free speech.

    Define criminal speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Jack5 (4,589 comments) says:

    Wihana posted at 1.09:

    …It seems quite ridiculous that the justification for banning an item of clothing is that two girls were gang-raped…

    I don’t think it was suggested that the gang patch ban was justified SOLELY by this one deplorable crime. Rather this was cited as an example of the criminality and viciousness of gangs. There have been many gang rapes and a huge amount of other gang crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. backster (2,079 comments) says:

    The patch is everything to a Gang Member, it is their confidence, their status, their courage. It has been earned by the evil deeds they have committed and confirmed their admittance to the company of their peers. Deprive them of it and they lose all that and become simply pathetic.
    As for Berend’s comment…Your have terrified complainants unable to clearly identify offenders (all dressed the same,} have been threatened to be killed if they tell anyone. The Police have to make them aware of their ‘rights’They will probably be bailed by the judges.The case will take a year to be heard. Either offenders or agents will threaten and intimidate witnesses. The judge will rule out evidence he considers prejudicial. Not very easy at all, but a complete ban on patches would make it so much easier.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    backster (1,775) Says:
    May 16th, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    The patch is everything to a Gang Member, it is their confidence, their status, their courage. It has been earned by the evil deeds they have committed and confirmed their admittance to the company of their peers. Deprive them of it and they lose all that and become simply pathetic.
    As for Berend’s comment…Your have terrified complainants unable to clearly identify offenders (all dressed the same,} have been threatened to be killed if they tell anyone. The Police have to make them aware of their ‘rights’They will probably be bailed by the judges.The case will take a year to be heard. Either offenders or agents will threaten and intimidate witnesses. The judge will rule out evidence he considers prejudicial. Not very easy at all, but a complete ban on patches would make it so much easier.

    Due process and rules of evidence? How shocking! How about we throw out the courts altogether and that way it’ll be easier for the Police to do whatever is necessary to deal to the gangs. That way we’ll only have one gang to worry about. :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Jack5,

    The gang rape was cited in order to suggest that anyone who disagrees with the ban must be a supporter of gang rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. David Garrett (6,427 comments) says:

    Weihana: You actually raise a very good point – would you be an intimidating figure with your “bony white arms” sticking out of a stinking denim jacket with a patch on the the back? The answer – which you would know if you knew anything at all about gang culture – is YES you would…because by your wearing said badge of (dis)honour, other pieces of filth with less bony arms than you are duty bound to assist you by bashing anyone who “disrespects” you…however you might do that, intentionally or otherwise. Looking at you the wrong way will do it.

    Gangs are the scourge of New Zealand. A High Court Judge I knew – now deceased – told me that he and many of his brethren bitterly regretted taking what he called “the wrong road” back in the early 70′s when gangs first began to be a serious problem. He was then a young(ish) lawyer who thought their “human rights” were important, and bought into the bullshit “the Rotary Club is a type of gang too” argument. He went to his grave a decade or so ago bitterly lamenting how he and others had got it so wrong.

    And now we have at least two parties in our parliament who refer to gangs in speeches as ” a different kind of whanau” Until we change that mindset as a country, we are going to have these scum in our midst.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (9,459 comments) says:

    DG – or until the problem is handed over to a special battalion of the Infantry or the SAS, as I said… ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. David Garrett (6,427 comments) says:

    RRM: Actually, and seriously, if I was running the shop I would give serious consideration to that…. gangs will never be other than a scourge and a blot on our society. It was my task to go to Wanganui and fact find for ACT so we could decide whether or not to support their patch ban. When I was there, the local cops showed me security camera footage taken at WINZ, and cell phone footage taken at local parks…In both locations, with mothers and their terrified children looking on, one group of scum battled another group of scum for no other reason than that scum group A was duty bound to “rumble” with scum group B whenever they encountered them – if they were “patched up”…The two groups of scum were “allowed” by their own twisted code to limit their reaction to the others to verbal abuse if neither were patched up.

    As I said to Weihana earlier – and it applies to other earnest fellows of his or her ilk – the PATCH has a significance that ordinary citizens don’t understand, and it is the patch that causes, or at least leads to, this kind of intimidating behaviour. Remove that from the equation, and you remove at least some of the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    “Hey Kea, which rugby teams are an organised crime group?”

    The ban would be on gang patches, not on organised crime groups. I am not sure if the act will bind the crown, but if it does, it will mean a major change for the biggest gang in NZ, the police.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Louis Houlbrooke (9 comments) says:

    Freedom of speech is absolute. Businesses can ban patches on their property but on public property we ought not to start discriminating against people based on group affiliation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    backster: but a complete ban on patches would make it so much easier.

    I really don’t follow this. You’re saying gangs can rape girls without having to face prosecution, but a ban on gang patches would solve what?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RF (1,272 comments) says:

    WARNING – not for young eyes. a number of years ago in my previous occupation i had to process a gang prospect who had been patched with the usual crap they wear. all the patches were grubby with the exception of one.. a white round patch several inches across with a red bullseye. i had never seen this one before and the prospect proudly told me that he had only recently earned it. he had to remove a used tampax with his teeth.

    this is the type of filth that the Labour, Greens, Maori & Mana support.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. David Garrett (6,427 comments) says:

    RF: funny, there doesnt seem to be any defenders of the “alternative whanau” about…all practising their waiata perhaps…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,748) Says:
    May 16th, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Weihana: You actually raise a very good point – would you be an intimidating figure with your “bony white arms” sticking out of a stinking denim jacket with a patch on the the back? The answer – which you would know if you knew anything at all about gang culture – is YES you would…because by your wearing said badge of (dis)honour, other pieces of filth with less bony arms than you are duty bound to assist you by bashing anyone who “disrespects” you…however you might do that, intentionally or otherwise. Looking at you the wrong way will do it.

    Well they would probably not defend me but rather beat me to a pulp for not actually being a member. But point taken nonetheless. :)

    As I said to Weihana earlier – and it applies to other earnest fellows of his or her ilk – the PATCH has a significance that ordinary citizens don’t understand, and it is the patch that causes, or at least leads to, this kind of intimidating behaviour. Remove that from the equation, and you remove at least some of the problem.

    But does it? Where’s the evidence?

    From 2009 to 2011 Whanganui total offences went down from 3125 to 2742 (refer Stats NZ crime tables). Great. It must have worked. Right? That’s about a 13% drop.

    Except that total offences for the entire country also dropped from 238111 to 210341 during the same period. That’s about a 12% drop.

    Basically, it doesn’t seem like the gang patch ban made any impact at all on crime.

    And that gets back to the fact that a piece of fabric isn’t the core problem. No one’s afraid of fabric. It’s the people wearing the fabric that are the problem. And whilst little old ladies might feel better about their Sunday shopping isn’t it actually better that these people wear identifying clothing?

    Usually the problem with crime is that you don’t know who the criminals are but here they are basically wearing a sign on their foreheads saying “look at me, I’m up to no good”. And we want to remove that?

    That’s not to say they should be welcomed on school grounds. I agree they aren’t just another type of whanau. But the fuss over their patches really does seem a waste of time in the wider scheme of things.

    As I suggested before, perhaps their funding could be looked at. Where does a lot of it come from? How could we reduce that do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Jack5 (4,589 comments) says:

    Louis Houlbrooke posted at 7.06:

    …Freedom of speech is absolute…

    I’m no lawyer, Louis, but are you sure that statement is correct?

    I thought that even in the most free democracies there are limits imposed by law on: sedition, incitement to violence, words used in prospectuses for investments. States delegate powers to judges to control what can be said or reported about people in court hearings, or in complete hearings, such as of the Family Court. Western democratic states provide remedies available for libel and defamation of character, and for using others’ speech without their permission (copyright).

    So in what sense is freedom of speech absolute? It may be precious, but absolute?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Louis Houlbrooke (6) Says:
    May 16th, 2013 at 7:06 pm

    Freedom of speech is absolute. Businesses can ban patches on their property but on public property we ought not to start discriminating against people based on group affiliation.

    I tend to agree with the sentiment but it’s simply not absolute. Speech can cause harm. Moreover, I’m quite happy to discriminate against card carrying members of NAMBLA who may be hanging around school grounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Jack5 (4,589 comments) says:

    Weihana implies in his 9.10 post that the gang problem would end if we ended the drugs problem. I’m not sure that’s right, Weihana. I think criminals will find some way to steal withot working.

    However, on the drug problem, maybe it is time for some innovative solutions. When New Zealanders felt booze was a national problem, and many people wanted national prohibition, licensing trusts emerged as a way of siphoning off profits for community benefit, and,by running fairly bland pubs strictly observing licensing hours, keeping booze a little under control.

    Could there be something similar for marijuana? First make control regional, down to suburban and villatge level, then offer as an alternative to open slather something equivlent to licensing trusts, with community control, and profits siphoned off to both the general community benefit, with some earmarked to help with the damage caused to health by marijuana, such as increased incidence of schizophrenia.

    Personally, in regard to drugs, I would be for the status quo, which is the equivalent of national prohibition, or will be, once Dunne finally gets legislation through on dairy drugs. But maybe a trust model would be more successful in choking off flow of cash to criminals, and creating benefits both for communities and for the national tax take.

    PS: Weihana, what is NAMBLA?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Jack5,

    I wasn’t implying an “end” to the gang problem, merely suggesting a proportional reduction. Of course they can still commit other crime and they already are.

    Drugs are a health problem not a criminal justice problem. Moreover criminal law on drugs do not actually reflect the science on relative drug harm. Public perceptions share a similar ignorance. Anyway I could ramble on and on…

    NAMBLA is a group not worth knowing about.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. marcw (227 comments) says:

    I’m staggered that Maori Party opposed this… well, not really. Tell us Tariana Turia and Dr Peta Sharples, why are gang patches banned on the Maraes? OK for you to support this ban, but not OK for the rest of our community? Hippocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. laworder (269 comments) says:

    This won’t solve the gang problem – but nobody is pretending it will. Even Michael Laws admitted as such – the patch ban in Wanganui probably only displaced some crime. Hoever as DG noted above, it DID make public spaces more civilised for actual human beings, which was the intended aim. Similarly this proposed legislation will make government buildings somewhat safer and more civilised for those that work there and have business there.

    We need to discriminate on the grounds of group affiliation as much as possible when that group is one composed of violent/ sexual offenders and with largely criminal purposes in mind (as opposed to engaging in a process of promoting law reform). And this would definitely include RRM’s proposal, which would be carried out if I were “running the shop” too :-)

    Jack5, if you want to know what NAMBLA is, Google is your friend. But be prepared to vomit.

    Regards
    Peter J
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Keeping Stock (10,100 comments) says:

    Nigel Kearney said

    It’s an item of clothing FFS. If you ban it in a limited area, it’s easiest for them to just go somewhere else. That doesn’t mean the problem is solved. Telling a story about some girls being raped in a private building to justify restricting what people are allowed to wear on their clothing in a public building is the sort of thing a politician does when they don’t have a real argument to justify what they are proposing.

    Not so Nigel. Once a gang member is patched, they are patched for life. Losing the patch will result in expulsion from the gang. Losing it to a rival gang will result in expulsion, and a beating, or in some cases, being killed. The patch is a form of identity, and to lose it is to lose face.

    That’s why Laws and Chester Borrows first put the Gang Insignia Bill through Parliament. It was something that attacks gangs directly, by stripping members of their most personal possession. The Police could also confiscate and destroy the patches of gang members who broke the law; a bloody good way of fighting back against gang culture IMHO. To a Mongrel Mob member, having his patch seized and burned by the Police would be akin to losing it to a Black Power member in a fight.

    David Garrett’s 6.27pm comment is dead right. Within days of the Wanganui by-law being enacted, outward signs of gang presence disappeared. Whether they went underground or whether they left town is irrelevant; people felt safer on the streets, and that’s the most important thing. It’s all about taking away the power of gang members to intimidate, and I support McClay’s Member’s Bill 100%.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Northland Wahine (648 comments) says:

    This law, should only be the beginning of disbanding gangs.

    Like others have said above, patches are “earned” by acts of extreme violence and other criminal acts. Not for stealing a tenner out of your mums wallet.

    Once earned, they are worn to intimidate. They count on fear to help disable potential victims.

    And like others have said, once patched, patched for life. Very few have made it out of gang life, tho many older gang members do not actively participate on a physical level as they did in their youth. Do not mistake this as a lack of total of involvement. They are there, behind the scenes, pawning stolen goods, storing weapons, moving drugs.

    Remove the patch from the public domain and slowly, their power diminishes bit by bit.

    The ultimate aim is to make gangs illegal.

    End of.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I hate gangs. But the trouble with this is the precedent it sets and how we could define a “gang”. My comments regarding rugby clubs and the police may have been a stir, but the point is valid. How would we draft legislation that only included the real criminal gang patches ?

    Many biker gangs claim they are just motorcycle clubs, for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. big bruv (13,296 comments) says:

    The only gang law I want to see passed is a law that allows and compels the Police to shoot on sight.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    I’m amazed at the number of experts on gangs commenting here, with so many insights I would have thought they would have wiped gangs out years ago. Much like the Americans have wiped the mafia out, oh that’s right the mafia don’t wear patches, I nearly forgot also they haven’t been wiped out either – a couple of hundred years and counting. Maybe KS will ‘explain’ how you ‘can’t’ leave a gang but you can be ‘expelled’ – sort of seems like the same thing to the uninitiated.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. big bruv (13,296 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ

    I am amazed at how ill informed you actually are. Prior to 9/11 the American Mafia had been all but wiped out. This happened because the government passed laws that finally gave their authorities the tools to go after the gangs and resourced them to the same level.
    Indeed, had it not been for 9/11 there was a very good chance that the American Mafia could have been totally crushed.
    The Yanks proved that if a government is serious about crushing organised crime it can be done, of course the problem here is that no Kiwi government is really serious about wiping out the gangs, that would mean having to admit that the gang problem is largely a Maori problem and we all know that when it comes to Maori issues it is much easier for the government to stick it’s head in the sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Redbaiter (7,626 comments) says:

    KS bowing at the feet of his National Party gods as usual. Sickening.

    FFS..!!

    This is just stuff to make it look like they’re doing something when they’re really not doing anything.

    Don’t forget though, they were able to deal to the boy racers.

    But then they were mostly middle class and WHITE.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. David Garrett (6,427 comments) says:

    BB: Why are you surprised the killer is so uninformed?

    Kea: This “oh, how would we possibly draft effective legislation?” bleat has been around for years…and here’s the answer. Visit Germany or Ireland and see how they have done it – particularly the krauts. Neo Nazi groups of any kind – no matter what they wear, and what they might call themselves – are illegal there, as is the IRA in Eire. In neither country have those groups been eliminated – that is probably impossible, even if they resurrected the gestapo – but strict laws mean their freedom to operate is severely curtailed.

    I dont know just how the Germans have done it but you will never see groups – more than one is a group – of neo nazis on the street in Germany without the scuffers arriving in short order and running them in. And when I last checked, neither Germany nor Ireland were police states.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    David Garrett, in the German example, you gave, they are targeting people on the basis of their POLITCAL beliefs. Which reinforces my concerns. Are there any other political groups you think should be targeted ? How about socialist parties like the Greens ? After all, other socialist regimes have killed far more than the German socialist workers party, so why just pick on the new German socialist workers party ? (Neo-Nazi)

    You can see where I am going with this ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Keeping Stock (10,100 comments) says:

    KS bowing at the feet of his National Party gods as usual. Sickening.

    FFS..!!

    In case it had passed you by Redbaiter, both the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act 2009, and Todd McClay’s Bill were/are Member’s Bills. brought to the House by individual MP’s, not by any party.

    But don’t let that stop you frothing at the mouth; have a great day :D

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    What does ‘nearly’ mean BB? Is it like nearly ‘winning’ in Afghanistan, ‘nearly’ winning the war against ‘drugs’ or ‘the hearts and minds’ of the people. Asian gangs have edged out the Maori gangs here already, Maori gangs were never ‘efficient’ at anything other than making a lot of noise, bashing each other and filling the prisons. Those Asian gangs don’t wear patches here, nor have the ‘romantic’ tattoos seen in movies.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (6,427 comments) says:

    Kea: I do indeed take your point…and no doubt there was a great deal of teutonic hand wringing over the wording of their legislation…but the fact remains they have done it, and done it in a way that outlaws disciples of Adolf without also outlawing the German Green Party, which is one of the biggest in Europe.

    The difference really is you are starting from the position of “it can’t be done, and here are the reasons why”, whereas people like me start from the premise that it CAN be done, and work out how.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,750) Says:
    May 17th, 2013 at 9:31 am

    The difference really is you are starting from the position of “it can’t be done, and here are the reasons why”, whereas people like me start from the premise that it CAN be done, and work out how.

    I would rather say that Kea is starting from the position that when you undermine certain principles you put yourself inexorably on a path towards further incremental erosion to that principle in other areas.

    Perhaps it is no mere coincidence that Europe generally doesn’t have a problem outlawing a particular political affiliation (the Nazis) and perhaps because of this it is easier to argue for other restrictions on political speech such as prohibiting “hate speech”. How many times do we hear conservatives on these forums complaining that their right to criticize homosexuals is being whittled away? And yet many of the same people will gleefully hand the police whatever powers they want to deal with “those people”.

    Germany (and other countries in the area) aren’t police states, but that doesn’t change the fact that if you lock someone up simply because they said something disagreeable you, as a country, have acted in an immoral way and the fact that this evil is limited to a few select individuals that no one really cares about does not diminish the fact that to do such a thing is indeed wrong.

    I don’t want a government that arbitrarily locks people away because of their views or their group affiliation. I expect that when the government locks someone away it has a burden to prove, and that is that beyond all reasonable doubt a particular individual committed a particular crime.

    It seems to me people take for granted the freedoms they enjoy and the limits that are placed on the government and police forces. They seem to forget that not that long ago a person accused of a crime wasn’t even entitled to a defense lawyer. And if they had one, that lawyer wasn’t even permitted to speak in their defense. On this basis teenagers were often led to the gallows for petty theft. Indeed many intellectually compromised folk here would probably argue that would be a good thing. Of course their naivety leads them to believe that they will never be the one’s put under the sword with no one to speak on their behalf.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (8,790) Says:
    May 17th, 2013 at 6:20 am

    …people felt safer on the streets, and that’s the most important thing.

    I see, so we’re judging it by “feeling” now. Never mind that crime rates appear unaffected, as long as you are able to delude yourself to “feel” safe that’s the main thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. RRM (9,459 comments) says:

    Well said Weihana.

    But yet I would still be happier if the Army rounded up the main criminal scum gangs and just shot every piece of shit among them.

    It would be a stain on our society, but fuck it the mongrel mob etc are a stain on it already.

    So it would be like using red wine to get rid of some dog shit on carpet.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    laworder (204) Says:
    May 17th, 2013 at 1:05 am

    This won’t solve the gang problem – but nobody is pretending it will. Even Michael Laws admitted as such – the patch ban in Wanganui probably only displaced some crime.

    A statement unsupported by any evidence. We have anecdote and feelings and nothing much else.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Weihana, you seem to grasp my point. I also note that Germany puts people in prison for not accepting the “official” version of events in WWII. They are perhaps a poor example to draw upon in support of the gang patch ban.

    I have still not had it clearly explained to me who is being targeted with this proposal. What is a “gang” and what is a “patch” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Mike Readman (358 comments) says:

    What the hell happened to ACT – The Liberal Party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. David Garrett (6,427 comments) says:

    Mike: Your study of classical liberalism was clearly not very thorough. One of its basic tenets is that people cannot exercise their “rights” in a way that impinges on the rights of others. Someone bashing another person – or worse – is most certainly “impinging” on the latter’s rights, and cannot be tolerated.

    Article 3 of the ACT constitution (I think it is Art. 3) says the first duty of the state is ensuring the safety of its citizens. The state does that by dealing to people who would threaten the health and wellbeing of other citizens. If necessary – as in three strikes – it deals to such people by locking them away from the rest of us for a long time.

    What part of the above do you not get?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    ‘”many of the same people will gleefully hand the police whatever powers they want to deal with “those people”.’

    Very good Weihana.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    Also, the suggestion appears to be that because some gang members gang-raped two young girls then anyone who also wears the patch is guilty of the crime by association. Does this mean all Police are rapists because Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum are convicted rapists?

    It certainly would if Shipton and Schollum had raped because a crime of that severity was a requirement of acceptance into the Police and this particular crime was the one demanded by the Police commander involved – it would mean that all Police were rapists at the very least. It would also mean that we should take urgent and unusual steps to wipe that police force out of existence as soon as humanly possible – wouldn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. goldnkiwi (993 comments) says:

    Tattoos on foreheads make a far greater statement than patches and can not be removed ‘easily’.
    Having trespassed gang members in the course of business and just nutted off at others lol it is my opinion that some at least respect being stood up to.

    It is hard to tell which way it will go though but allowing oneself to be intimidated would be much worse in my opinion.

    No, that does not mean that everyone should or can stand up to bullies and intimidation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.