|
|
Post by harrytom on Mar 8, 2024 4:37:54 GMT 12
Now Judith Collins thinks banning/removing patches may breach human rights.If they want to tackle the drug issue need to look further a field.Tip lawyers comes to mind.A particular QC who is no longer with us definately had his finger in the pie.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 8, 2024 8:22:42 GMT 12
Now Judith Collins thinks banning/removing patches may breach human rights.If they want to tackle the drug issue need to look further a field.Tip lawyers comes to mind.A particular QC who is no longer with us definately had his finger in the pie. Govt telling people what they can and can't wear is 100% a breach of human rights. Exactly the same as the coercion for taking experimental medical treatments was. The only good thing that will come out of this is getting politicians to actually acknowledge what human rights are. The gang patch laws have already be shown to be illegal by the High Court - ref Hells Angles case in Wanganui. It is just such a massive distraction for an over-stretched police force and a Justice system in meltdown. If you applied the current laws and dealt with charges in a timely manner in the Courts (days or weeks, not months or years) that would go a long way to fixing the gang problem. We've gone from giving ram-raiders KFC to telling them what to wear. Why not just arrest them and charge them for ram raiding?!? |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Mar 8, 2024 13:42:43 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 8, 2024 14:52:04 GMT 12
If you want to ban Swastikas, which aren't an issue in NZ society (cause we aren't in Europe), then you'll need to also ban the Star of David. That represents mass murder, looting, and starvation on a genocidal scale. But that is only if you want to import into NZ other peoples issues from the other side of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Mar 8, 2024 15:47:28 GMT 12
Punching a grandmother is not a crime now? It was a sad day for women yesterday – and for justice. Repeatedly punching a 71 year old woman – a grandmother - will not even get you a conviction. We compare the outcome of this case with two other cases - connected in different ways. #McBlog #familyfirstnz #justice www.facebook.com/FamilyFirstNZ/videos/765520645151933Bloody disgusting.Judge needs to serve time |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Mar 8, 2024 18:55:44 GMT 12
Govt telling people what they can and can't wear is 100% a breach of human rights. The Govt, councils and society as a whole already dictate what you can and can't wear. Besides no one has said 'we want to stop gangs wearing any specific clothes', it's the logo on them that is the point in discussion.
So you'd be OK with me walking thru a primary school with a weeping vagina printed right across the front of my shirt? What about turning up at a Diwali festival with 'Indians are only good for target practice' ?
What about walking into a synagogue wearing a Waffen SS uniform?
Surely doing any of those falls under the same human right as allowing a gang muppets to have very obvious gang signage on his jacket. So as I do not want sex offenders walking into a Girl Guide meeting with 'Please suck my dick little girl' emblazoned across their clothes I'm OK with telling adults, "keep the jacket no worries at all just remove the logo on it".
When I say 'you' I mean all of similar thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 8, 2024 20:17:50 GMT 12
Govt telling people what they can and can't wear is 100% a breach of human rights. The Govt, councils and society as a whole already dictate what you can and can't wear. Besides no one has said 'we want to stop gangs wearing any specific clothes', it's the logo on them that is the point in discussion.
So you'd be OK with me walking thru a primary school with a weeping vagina printed right across the front of my shirt? What about turning up at a Diwali festival with 'Indians are only good for target practice' ?
What about walking into a synagogue wearing a Waffen SS uniform?
Surely doing any of those falls under the same human right as allowing a gang muppets to have very obvious gang signage on his jacket. So as I do not want sex offenders walking into a Girl Guide meeting with 'Please suck my dick little girl' emblazoned across their clothes I'm OK with telling adults, "keep the jacket no worries at all just remove the logo on it".
When I say 'you' I mean all of similar thinking.
Each of your examples involves a specific location and a specific clothing item that is intended to cause offence. The govt are talking about a blanket ban, in public, on a deserted footpath, in the bush, going to the shops. Further, the govt is saying, if they don't like you, you can't hang out with your mullet boat crew. Infact, you can't even phone, message or speak to your mullet boat crew in any way for three years. That is without committing a crime. Just for being you. Zero issues with holding criminals accountable. If you commit a crime your get arrested, have your day in court and do your punishment. And there are sufficient laws to control that. But just saying we are going to ban you from hanging out with, or communicating at all, with any of your mates, for three years, cause we don't like who you are, that is a very dangerous precedence. Sure, if the guys are running organised crime, get the evidence, have the day in court and then put in non-association orders. But who's to say the Uylses guys can't get caught up in this? Or some bondage guy and his mates on touring bikes (i.e. you), cause you said something bad about the govt online? What Mitchell is doing is complete overreach for what is basically 6 years of the last govt rewarding criminals with KFC. All we need is to enforce the current laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by eri on Mar 9, 2024 6:56:37 GMT 12
yes, a 12,000 year old sanskrit symbol used by hindus, buddists and even early christians tons on old temples all over asia and even a few in europe For the Hindus and Buddhists in India and other Asian countries, the swastika was an important symbol for many thousands of years. To this day, the swastika symbol can still be seen in abundance - on temples, buses, taxis, and on the cover of books. It was also used in ancient Greece and Rome, and can be found in the remains of the ancient city of Troy, which existed 4,000 years ago.www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-other-artifacts/swastika-origins-001312the finnish air started using it before the nazi  and only recently quietly dropped it www.timesofisrael.com/a-century-on-finland-air-force-drops-swastika-symbol-researcher/ |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Mar 9, 2024 7:49:38 GMT 12
The Govt, councils and society as a whole already dictate what you can and can't wear. Besides no one has said 'we want to stop gangs wearing any specific clothes', it's the logo on them that is the point in discussion.
So you'd be OK with me walking thru a primary school with a weeping vagina printed right across the front of my shirt? What about turning up at a Diwali festival with 'Indians are only good for target practice' ?
What about walking into a synagogue wearing a Waffen SS uniform?
Surely doing any of those falls under the same human right as allowing a gang muppets to have very obvious gang signage on his jacket. So as I do not want sex offenders walking into a Girl Guide meeting with 'Please suck my dick little girl' emblazoned across their clothes I'm OK with telling adults, "keep the jacket no worries at all just remove the logo on it".
When I say 'you' I mean all of similar thinking.
Each of your examples involves a specific location and a specific clothing item that is intended to cause offence. The govt are talking about a blanket ban, in public, on a deserted footpath, in the bush, going to the shops. Further, the govt is saying, if they don't like you, you can't hang out with your mullet boat crew. Infact, you can't even phone, message or speak to your mullet boat crew in any way for three years. That is without committing a crime. Just for being you. Zero issues with holding criminals accountable. If you commit a crime your get arrested, have your day in court and do your punishment. And there are sufficient laws to control that. But just saying we are going to ban you from hanging out with, or communicating at all, with any of your mates, for three years, cause we don't like who you are, that is a very dangerous precedence. Sure, if the guys are running organised crime, get the evidence, have the day in court and then put in non-association orders. But who's to say the Uylses guys can't get caught up in this? Or some bondage guy and his mates on touring bikes (i.e. you), cause you said something bad about the govt online? What Mitchell is doing is complete overreach for what is basically 6 years of the last govt rewarding criminals with KFC. All we need is to enforce the current laws. You have some interesting points even though you have expanded considerably past the simple 'patch' discussion which was all I talked about.
The problem with patches is lots have them, the Filthy Few thru to the Girl Guides so writing any law is going to be damn tricky. But then anyone who considers what is being expressed by the respective patches as being equal will be by far the largest problem.
We define people in a huge range of ways today and most are perfectly fine doing so, in fact most call for differentiation for assorted reasons as not everyone is the same. To suggest a Girl Guide is the same as a gang member is just bizarre.
Yes if the law was changed to ban offensive patches, just like the laws we have already that ban offensive lots of things, I do fully expect the police to be able to define a difference between a Girl Guide, a Mullet boat sailor and a Head Hunter, in fact I'd expect a 10yo to have little problem doing the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 9, 2024 10:33:00 GMT 12
You have some interesting points even though you have expanded considerably past the simple 'patch' discussion which was all I talked about.
The problem with patches is lots have them, the Filthy Few thru to the Girl Guides so writing any law is going to be damn tricky. But then anyone who considers what is being expressed by the respective patches as being equal will be by far the largest problem.
We define people in a huge range of ways today and most are perfectly fine doing so, in fact most call for differentiation for assorted reasons as not everyone is the same. To suggest a Girl Guide is the same as a gang member is just bizarre.
Yes if the law was changed to ban offensive patches, just like the laws we have already that ban offensive lots of things, I do fully expect the police to be able to define a difference between a Girl Guide, a Mullet boat sailor and a Head Hunter, in fact I'd expect a 10yo to have little problem doing the same.
I've two concerns about the patch ban (other than the basic human rights issue) - one being how to write a law that doesn't have unintended consequences, the other being effectiveness. I'm not sure how you can write a law that differentiates an organised criminal gang from the Timaru Men's rowing 8, Voices for Freedom, the Girl Guides, or Scouts, or law abiding citizens that like wearing leather and riding motorcycles. It will need a government agent to make an arbitrary call. i.e. the Police deciding if they don't like what you are wearing they can lock you up. That has been tried before, in central and northern Europe (i.e. Germany) in the 1930's. I believe they had to establish a separate state security force to manage it. On Effectiveness, my understanding is the purpose of the law is to address intimidation. Patches in and of themselves are not intimidating. It is the demeanour of the person. A large, angry man that looks like he wants to kill you is intimidating. A happy smiling person that says hello is not intimidating. What they wear does have a contribution, but not 100% by itself. Taking protection rackets for example, my understanding is the Mafia all were well dressed and wore suits. But they were still extremely intimidating. Same with the Triads, not that I know much about them. Serious organised criminal groups don't wear bright red patches advertising they are a serious organised criminal group. Based on this theory of intimidation, Mark Mitchell will need to pass a law requiring we all smile and say hello to each other. I'm sure if I did to everyone I saw I'd soon get hit up by some LGBTQ type as being a sex pest. Then there are two practical problems. Wanganui already banned gang patches. The Head Hunters took it to Court (the High Court I think, possibly the Supreme Court) and it was found to be illegal, it breaches human rights on freedom of association and freedom of expression. So there is already a legal precedent. Mitchell argues that the community has a right to not be intimidated, which is correct. But for this logic to hold up a patch ban, you have to establish the link between the patch only, and intimidation. The real issue with intimidation is the dozen angry tattooed men with dark glasses riding noisy motorbikes giving you death stares and making throat slitting gestures. The patches are only secondary. If the mongrel mob all turned out in nice tailored suits (like the Mafia did) and looked at you like they want to eat you for breakfast, they are still going to be intimidating. The other issue is police resources and priorities. We have more than enough laws already, all we need to do is apply them. The whole gang patch thing is just a distraction. We need more police, and a justice system (Courts) that isn't backlogged by 2 years. If over the last 6 years, if the police actually arrested and charged ram raiders and other criminal behaviour, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The patch ban wont address the basic issue, which is catching, charging and convicting criminals. For that to happen both the police and courts need to be properly resourced. In that regard, it is far easier for Mitchell to put out a headline grabbing and popular policy that is cheap but has no actual substance behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Mar 9, 2024 12:24:20 GMT 12
Iwi will not pay tax, Mr Fish and Mr GO30 will pay tax. They wrote that law which differentiates and does so quite specifically. A 10yo is not allowed into see a R16 movie. Another that differentiates, there are 1000's of them. If you are in a public space wearing - a Girl Guide patch then no problem. a Team Inos patch then no problem a Taka Grammer School patch then no problem a Mongrol Mob patch then you do have a problem.
Care will needed, as you and anyone with 1/2 clue suggests, around what is and isn't regarded as an undesirable patch. But considering we are talking about a small handful of patches being specific would not be hard.
Yes patches are intimidating to the majority, that's the intention of them. If the patches were replaced with suits then the ability to use the patches to intimidate, as they most certainly are, is removed. Kiddy fiddlers. How many have gone thru life as fine upstanding citizens until one day..... Would they have had the same life if they wore a patch saying 'I'm a kiddy fiddler'?
Patches do have power, that's why the biggest gang in the land have patches on everything including their buildings and cars.The intention of that patch is so people do take notice and as we have seen more and more it is also used to intimidate. Remove that patch and what do you have? Just a dude in a poorly designed blue suit who does not have the visual power the patch gave them.
We define people, actions and symbols many ways ever single day including in law and we do change the laws around them. If a court says No it does not comply with the law, then as that law was made by us we simply change it. This whole human rights thing is a red herring and being applied to patches by people who are perfectly fine ignoring it in other situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Mar 9, 2024 18:40:24 GMT 12
Stopped at a takeaway fews ago wearing Akelas uniform and 2 boys in cub gear Black power member says.Nice colours Bro.Yeah mate we are the world's biggest gang and carry knives.Back then cubs had knives;matches.He had a good laugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 9, 2024 19:01:47 GMT 12
Iwi will not pay tax, Mr Fish and Mr GO30 will pay tax. They wrote that law which differentiates and does so quite specifically. A 10yo is not allowed into see a R16 movie. Another that differentiates, there are 1000's of them. If you are in a public space wearing - a Girl Guide patch then no problem. a Team Inos patch then no problem a Taka Grammer School patch then no problem a Mongrol Mob patch then you do have a problem.
Care will needed, as you and anyone with 1/2 clue suggests, around what is and isn't regarded as an undesirable patch. But considering we are talking about a small handful of patches being specific would not be hard.
Yes patches are intimidating to the majority, that's the intention of them. If the patches were replaced with suits then the ability to use the patches to intimidate, as they most certainly are, is removed. Kiddy fiddlers. How many have gone thru life as fine upstanding citizens until one day..... Would they have had the same life if they wore a patch saying 'I'm a kiddy fiddler'?
Patches do have power, that's why the biggest gang in the land have patches on everything including their buildings and cars.The intention of that patch is so people do take notice and as we have seen more and more it is also used to intimidate. Remove that patch and what do you have? Just a dude in a poorly designed blue suit who does not have the visual power the patch gave them.
We define people, actions and symbols many ways ever single day including in law and we do change the laws around them. If a court says No it does not comply with the law, then as that law was made by us we simply change it. This whole human rights thing is a red herring and being applied to patches by people who are perfectly fine ignoring it in other situations.
Do you think the patch law will make any real difference? I would like it to, but I'm feeling pessimistic about it. At best, I recon it may give the police an excuse (what do they call it, reasonable cause?) to turn the patch wearing gang member over, so as to find something they can be charged with. Obviously there are grey areas in the law all the time. Police can't discriminate cause someone looks dodgy as fuck, the have to have 'reasonable cause' to search someone. Criminals hate police attention. It is bad for business. Getting turned over all the time may change their behaviour. BUT, the police will need plenty of resources to do it. Might even need to stop attending family harm and mental health crisis to resource it. What do you think of that line? I was gobsmacked. Mitchell saying police will no longer attend 'non-criminal' call outs, specifically family harm and mental health crisis. Sure, it would be great if the mental health crisis teams were resourced to actually meet the demand, but the chances of that happening are laughable. It would appear he is saying the community want crime to be the priority, not family harm or mental health. It will be interesting to see what the community says when they see the results of what they've wished for. Or if the police stop attending family harm so they can enforce dress-codes. Interesting times. Can't wait to see how it pans out. |
|
|
|
Post by chariot on Mar 9, 2024 20:30:39 GMT 12
Talking of gangs, when I was plying League back in the 70's, we were playing City Newton. Those days we only had 1 changing room at our club, so both teams in same changing facilities. In come the storm troupers in all their gear and here we are, 50% skinny white guys.
Everyone is stripping down and this guy from City is standing there with womans knickers on. Everyone cracks up laughing and this dude says he had no clean undies so he borrows a pair of the misses. We were threatened with a beating if we won, which we did but all had lots of beers and laughs afterwards.
|
|
