by frog
Picture a world where the state tells you what you can and cannot wear in public. Where the state tells you who you can and cannot associate with. Where the civil liberties you get are based on the lottery of your demographics. This is the world that the self-proclaimed nemesis of the nanny state, Michael Laws, thinks we should live in. Really, it’s just the nanny state cross dressing – in jackboots. Here is Michael’s logic, quoted from today’s Sunday Star Times Op/Ed:
What Stokes and other apologists, like the Black Power’s confrere Denis O’Reilly, preach is that gang members are human too. That they have rights. Yet these claims are, surely, questionable.
This is the flawed foundation of all of Law’s logic. That certain human beings are not really human after all. We know from both living memory and ancient history where such logic leads. I hear goose-steps and it gives me goosebumps.
When did outlaws – who exist to defy the law – deserve its protection?
Now we get an idea of which humans are not really humans after all – the outlaws. So I’m safe from being declared ‘not human’, as long as I am not an outlaw. (Or of a certain faith, or wearing particular colours) Who determines who is an outlaw? The courts? No. Michael does. And he says that all gang members are outlaws. People who wear patches are, by Law’s definition:
… staunch, an outlaw and a pseudo-warrior – all rolled into one. Penniless but pitiless. And then there is the P, the dak, the booze and the companion psychos addled by years of such combination. Vilified by normal society, targeted by rival gangs and required to subsist on the state’s largesse – be it benefit, state house or legal aid.
Having painted all gang members with the same brush, Laws closes the loop on his logic. No gang members are human. All gang members are outlaws. Outlaws don’t deserve the protection of the law. Outlaws do not get any rights. Therefore, and in conclusion, those inhuman, outlaw gang members have no rights and
Gang rights are silly sophistry.
With this impeccable logic in hand, we can now legislate what it is that people can and cannot wear in public. What is almost as galling is that Michael Laws actually believes that having a public dress code is going to help solve the problems associated with gangs!
Do you think that creating a new power for the police force, let’s call them the fashion police, is really going to put a dent in the very real social issues and challenges that our communities face? Or is this the top of a very slippery slope leading to the destruction of the civil rights we have spent the last century fighting for? I don’t claim to have the answers to the social issues we are facing. But I can say with confidence that creating the fashion police in New Zealand is just a little bit daft and no solution at all. In fact, it is downright dangerous.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by frog on Sun, August 3rd, 2008
Tags: , fashion police, gang, jackboot, michael laws, nanny state, patch, sunday star times
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Picture a world were the rights of criminals are more important than the rights of victims.
Picture a world were a political party thinks that letting criminals out or not imprisoning them in the first place is better for society in general.
Picture a party that thinks legalising drugs is a great idea without thinking about who would end up paying for the cost of that stupidity.
Picture a world were those opposed to Law’s bill offer nothing as an alternative.
Picture a world where some political parties think gang members deserve to be considered human.
This world is called NZ under the Greens.
God help us all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Picture a world where the state tells you what light bulbs you can use.
Picture a world where the state tells you what food you can feed your kids
Picture a world where the state tells you how you can discipline your kids.
More shocking hypocrisy from the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh dear big bro. If half of your ‘facts’ about the Greens were right, I’d spend the time to rebut them. But they are not. Back under your rock!
But it is clear that you suffer from the same primary delusion that Laws does. That some humans are not really human and don’t deserve to be treated as such. That says all I need to know about what you believe. What a scary world you must live in. Have you polished your jackboots this morning? Will you be out on the square in Wanganui checking that everyone is dressed appropriately? The fashion police need you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Herzlich willkommen in die Flussstadt. Arbeit macht frei!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
Are you that desperate that you are now chasing the gang vote?
And please do me a favour re the jackboot comment, I had thought you were a bit better than he usual communist when faced with people who appose your policy, but hey if all you can do is attack and abuse those who do not share your views the knock yourself out.
Or….you could tell me why gang members deserve to be considered part of humanity?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog may think a theif deserves ACC for triping over my fence while flogging my tv but most people don’t.
I agree with frog that mr laws takes a fairly extreme angle on things, but no more extreme than the greens in the opposite direction.
Some where in the middle ground I am sure there is a solution but that would assume NZ’s are moderate, and , well , we are not. So the same old polarisation will continue with very little real progress made in sticking with our nations heritage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, you’ve Godwinned the thread.
Big Bro, Shunda – the police already have pretty good laws for everything that gangs do. Violence, drug dealing, robbery, and much else is still illegal as far as I know. The law which Muldoon introduced specifically to allow police to arrest gang members if they’re considered to be intimidating for the public has not been repealed and is still used (although mainly against drunks and protesters these days).
The people who deal with gangs think this law is a bad idea, and that says enough for me. Not only is this yet another attack on freedom of expression, but it’s ineffective too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the human point is irrelivant to the rights point so long as the individual still able to comprehend their actions. but then again it wouldint surprise me if they couldint, after all; the kiwi is the perfict representation of the average new zealander, lol.
we gain rights through the social contract by agreeing not to exercise the relivant freedom, if we still exercise that freedom then we void that right to the relivant social body, in new zealand that is in most cases the state, so laws is right, as much as i hate to admit it, in some of his claims.
further more we gain certain social privledges by surrendering certain incidents of rights, an eample being that we surrender a fraction of our income to gain the protection of institutions of state, healthcare, and between work support; if one should not receive such privledges where one does not surrender that incidence of a right, that is to say if one does not pay tax reguarly or make an effort to do so then one sould have no entitlement to a benifit.
Heres one of the many examples i have, i will just mention this one cause it annoys me significantly;
im a student, my mother earns too much so i have no entitilement to an allowence despit eme receiving no support from my mother, i have to get a student loan to pay my uni fees. now thats all fine and dandy with me really.
but; my flat-’mate’ is unemployed, 21, and has never worked, he is currently ment to be doing a expensive course to get him in to work, all his fees paid for. he hasint been in half a year since he figures he will try get the most out of it and his tuters are happy with that, so he sits at his desk all day playing games. he gets 150 per week from the benifit plus 50 for travel (despite living near the place of training) plus 60 for board, thats $260 per week for sitting on his arse and not attending the course hes ment to be attending, plus he doesint have to pay fees. and to top it off; yesterday cops came round looking for him (he wasint here) to execute a warrent for his arrest because he hadint been fufuling the courts ruling (of which we knew nothing), and yet still, he gets the dole.
well, thats my rant for the day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
my post has been eaten by the censorship leviathen. Frog, any chance of putting your webbed foot down its throat and pulling out my post? or better yet, destroying the beast?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
georgedarroch said: Toad, you’ve Godwinned the thread.
Was Godwinned before it started George – by frog him/herself: Really, it’s just the nanny state cross dressing – in jackboots.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As I mentioned in the last thread, to be consistent we must outlaw the gang patches – suits and ties – of the corporate bullies as well. No more power dressing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda states:
“Frog may think a “theif” (spelling?) deserves ACC for triping over my fence while flogging my tv but most people don’t.”
I wonder where you get this information from?
At the time the ACC scheme was in the process of being set up, it did away with litigation etc … so the concept of “fault” was removed.
This was decided by experts, after looking at all the consequences and alternatives.
ACC payments are NOT decided on whether or not a person is “worthy” (or not worthy) of treatment because of their behaviour. It is decided on whether or not the injury was the result of an ACCIDENT.
In the process, ACC took away the victims right to sue you for having a fence that could be tripped over … regardless of whether or not YOU were at fault for having a dangerous fence …
It is a good idea to check the reasons WHY things are done in the way that they are, before sounding forth about how silly or wrong things are, and about what should, or should not, be done.
“History teaches that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
did someone say..’outlaw the thong..!’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Re “Godwinning the thread”, I’d like to move that discussion over to gblog.
I’ve also raised some comparisons on gblog re the National Party’s record and potential programme on work-for-dole with Nazism.
So let’s keep this one on the initial issue posted by frog, and we can have the discussion on the other issues raised over at gblog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
georgedarroch – toad is right. I godwinned my own thread. It was intentional, in the same way Laws’ normalising of his hate message was intentional. As I said in the post, when I read Michael laws’ Op/Eds, I hear goose-steps. It gives me goose bumps.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Isn’t part of the problem here how the original question is posed, ie are gang members somehow less than human?
Rather than it being about whether a person or group of people are “valuable human beings”, what about questioning the standards of behaviour that we expect from all members of our society? For example: yes, you are a valuable human being with certain fundamental rights BUT you’re also a member of our society and not entitled to exercise your individualism if in doing so, you harm others.
A society too focused on the needs of its community can oppress fundamental rights and freedoms. But on the other hand, too much weight to the needs of the individual can fray the cohesive cords of our social fabric.
Viewed this way, I read Laws as challenging the existence of an absolute “right” to be part of an organisation that openly espouses anti-social and criminal behaviour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog, Toad, acknowledged, but it seemed Frog’s use was more an allusion than a direct comparison. Anyhow, I really don’t like holocaust comparisons for a number of reasons – and I really didn’t like that one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
You actually pull me up on a spelling mistake?
Unbelievable!!!!
Semantics aside I think my point is still valid.
Are you telling me a violent crimminal breaking out of jail deserves ACC when he injures himself on the security fence?
Or a violent person has the right not to be harmed when I try to stop him raping my wife?
Or the UN should stand by while Hutu’s hack Tutsi’s to bits?
You can see where I am going with this.
“History teaches that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.?
Indeed it does.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When Kiwi’s are discussing the ‘gang problem” they are generally talking about the ‘criminal gangs’. Which gangs are you talking about? And the goose steps you heard were coming from the beehive. Frau Bradford was at the front.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen’s comments about ACC are legally correct, and her understanding of the history is correct, but I think all that illustrates is that ACC law bears no relation to what is fair or reasonable, and never has. It is absurd that someone who gets injured while committing a crime gets compenastion, but someone who gets injured during surgery gets compensation only if the injury was due to negligence, rather than a recognised risk of the procedure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d rather have more police to catch gang members doing things that are already illegal, rather than inventing pointless new laws for the police to enforce.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’d rather have more police to catch gang members doing things that are already illegal, rather than inventing pointless new laws for the police to enforce.”
Exactly, and while I can’t stand Mr Laws, I can understand how the liberal approach to law enforcement encorages reactionary politics like this to emerge.
A plague on both your houses!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Really this Green NZ policy is rather foolish. We have gang patches and colours being worn in the north by kids as young a 6 years.
Do you really support any expression on dress code….perhaps swastikas and black uniforms should be an historical reminder of what can happen then.
Good on the thousands of constituents who support this measure. Michael Laws is wise on this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
WE are the state people! stop talking about it as if it is something that is/should be imposed on us. That’s just crazy! We make it, we run it, it is there to benefit us collectively and enhance our well-being. Not there to police our every move.
No one including Laws can change the fact that someone is human. Human rights are for everyone. People like Laws aid in encouraging dehumanization in all its forms. Laws lacks any kind of empathy for his fellow man and holds back the human race. Punishment is for those who commit crime, their rights remain intact and anyone who violates another’s rights is committing abuse.
I believe in strict sentencing for serious and violent crime but also reformative and preventative justice which we seem to see little of these days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The purpose of ACC is to treat injury and provide rehabilitation. It is not (and must not be) in the business of deciding who is “morally worthy” of such treatment.
If we as a Society chose not to treat, or rehabilitate people that are judged as “baddies”, who would decide, and where would this stop?
(Remember to “Be careful of what you wish for … You just might get it!”)
… More police to catch gang members doing things that are illegal ?
Should that come before or after more police to catch white collar criminals
doing things that are illegal ?
Frankly, I was at first shocked, and am now becoming more and more concerned, about the overt racisim, especially aimed at Polynesian New Zealanders … and Maori (ie at Tangatawhenua !) which is being expressed openly and seemingly confidently on frogblog by some of the visitors here.
(Are these contributors Kiwi-born-and-bred I wonder?)
I am also concerned at some of the simplistic “solutions” put forward.
The measure of any Society is how it treats its weakest members.
We need to get to the root(s) of the problems that we are seeing, and fix them there.
This requires cooperation among various groups and agencies, early intervention, more money (not less) etc … and support and understanding from Kiwis and New Residents at large.
Simple “knee jerk”solutions will only exacerbate the situation … if, indeed, it is as bad as visitors to this thread make it out to be …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
> The purpose of ACC is to treat injury and provide rehabilitation. It is not (and must not be) in the business of deciding who is “morally worthy? of such treatment.
currently it does decide who is worthy of such treatment. It gives money and rehabilitation to people who have had accidents, no matter how careless they were being, but denies this largesse to people with conditions like multiple sclerosis, which is never caused by carelessness. Yes, it’s probably sensible to give assistance to people injured while committing crimes, but there’s no way they should be treated as more deserving than people with diseases just because their problem has similarities with one that someone could potentially have sued for in the olden days.
> … More police to catch gang members doing things that are illegal ?
Should that come before or after more police to catch white collar criminals
doing things that are illegal ?
I don’t know which is more under-resourced at the moment. I’d like to see more police dealing with both. And more rehabilitation in prisons, and more early intervention in schools. I would fund it by making prison sentences shorter, because a longer sentence doesn’t provide greater deterrence to someone who doesn’t expoect to get caught.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
You sound a little cleche
Smearing “visitors” to this site as bigoted racists,…. YAWN!!
Why is it that people of a more liberal perspective always end up calling people names?
I guess its a good way of winning a debate without even debating the issues, how do you know what my skin colour is eredwen?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea
It IS true that accident victims, no matter how unworthy, sometimes (or often?) do get care ahead of worthy non-accident sufferers.
However, this is NOT the fault of ACC (which gets its funding from another source) but it IS the fault (problem) of our inadequate funding of the Health System (which, with the prices of modern technology and training, apparently is a truly bottomless pit!)
“What should we do?” is the question.
I don’t have the answer for the Government, but “if it was up to me” health and education would always be top of my chart …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
we sould just make ACC a full SOE rather than the pseudo-SOE it currently is and open it up to competition, that way people can just go for the ones that will pay out for legitimate claims and all the levies that currently fund ACC can be regulated by the relivant companies insurance policies, as long as ACC is in the governments hands there will always be a moral regualator to ensure people arnt victimised and that the market plays fair.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda
You seem to be upset and angry at the Greens in general and at my posts in particular?
I have intended no offence.
My posts ARE NOT ABOUT YOU.,
So you must have misunderstood !
I seriously suggest that you think again.
Here is one example:
I’ve re-read my posts and still don’t have any idea of what this following post of yours is about!
…………………………………………
“You sound a little cleche
Smearing “visitors? to this site as bigoted racists,…. YAWN!!
Why is it that people of a more liberal perspective always end up calling people names?
I guess its a good way of winning a debate without even debating the issues, how do you know what my skin colour is eredwen?”
…………………………………………….
None of the Greens are suitable targets for your obvious anger!
As a guest on this blog, you COULD find it a polite and friendly place to be!
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Frankly, I was at first shocked, and am now becoming more and more concerned, about the overt racisim, especially aimed at Polynesian New Zealanders … and Maori (ie at Tangatawhenua !) which is being expressed openly and seemingly confidently on frogblog by some of the visitors here.
Read the subtext.
As a poster above pointed out, the administration is seen as being weak on crime. People are sick and tired of is approach. They want to try something else.
That desire to try something else feeds the extremist positions.
Nice to see the communities in Auckland taking it into their own hands, but law and order is government core competency. Perhaps if they spent less time interfering in our lives, and more time interfering in the lives of violent thugs, government might get round to doing the job which we pay them to do, rather than playing at being Fat Controller.
And who are you to say the extremist positions won’t work? We’ve tried your “criminal as victim” approach. Why repeat it over and over hoping it will work someday?
I’d like to see the Police enforcing the laws on the books. Not too much to ask, surely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
The greens aren’t liberal. They wish to exert more control over people, not less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just to clear things up for the right wingers liberal Left Wing
Thats right left wing parties are not liberal parites so the green party isn’t a liberal party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Getting back to the topic of the original post Michael Laws’ bill doesn’t go anywhere far enough. It should be extended to include Boy Scouts ands Girl Guides; both of them are patch wearing youth gangs. They’re far more threatening of good social order than mere criminal gangs, they’re openly SUBVERSIVE. Inculating loyalty and patriotism in flagrant defiance of the Free Market Establishment. If they succeed in undermining the spirit of free market capitalism all the efforts of Brad Butterworth and Robbie Deans to make loyalty into a marketable commodity will be lost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ACT, Libertarianz….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
michaela,
Brilliant comment!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m confused by the post Michaela are you actually trying to make the claim that Robbie Deans left New Zealand because he was dis-loyal.
Robbie Deans left New Zealand because New Zealand didn’t want him, so he moved to a country that did want him.
Hands down he is the best rugby coach we have had in years helping shape the Crusaders into the single best Super 14 team.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog, this is one of the rare gems of posts where I 100% agree with you.
This would be a stupid, pointless law, which is why so many minor parties from all ends of the political spectrum (Green, Act, Maori, and Family outside parliament) are opposed to it. It shows why we need minor parties to bring some sense to issues sometimes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 12:49 am
> we sould just make ACC a full SOE rather than the pseudo-SOE it currently is and open it up to competition, that way people can just go for the ones that will pay out for legitimate claims
I’d rather abolish it, move its services into the health and welfare systems, and give assistance on the basis of need rather than cause.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# I Said:
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
> I don’t know which is more under-resourced at the moment. I’d like to see more police dealing with both. And more rehabilitation in prisons, and more early intervention in schools. I would fund it by making prison sentences shorter, because a longer sentence doesn’t provide greater deterrence to someone who doesn’t expoect to get caught.
In addition, I’d legalise marijuana, BZP and ecstasy, to take the profits from those businesses out of the hands of criminal gangs. With those profits in the hands of people whose expertise is in working within the law and who have nothing to fear from the police, New Zealand would become a safer place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, Michael Laws.
What you’re seeing when Mr Laws makes these outrageous comments – not appreciated here in Wanganui by some, as it seems to have forever linked our city with ‘massive gang problems’ – is Michael doing his bit to position himself for national politics once again.
He has grown bored with mere mayoralty and has a higher prize in mind.
Some context: I’ve lived in Wanganui for two years – I’ve never seen a gang patch in town. I’ve seen the occasional one in the suburb where I live, but I find that handy because now I know where the gang members hang out. Which is one of the arguments that police use – if gang members want to show off their affiliations, how nice and easy that makes it for police to identify them.
Why stop at a gang patch? Why not ban blue and red, because those colours seem to wind gangs up too.
Generally, when I want to hear sensible advice on policing, I’ll listen to the police – not a self-serving politician who cares nothing for the community he lives in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
“You seem to be upset and angry at the Greens in general and at my posts in particular?”
Just cause I word things strongly dosen’t mean I am an angry nut bar, I happen to think this is a very serious issue which justifies strong debate.
I have said I am not particularly fond of mr Laws beliefs, so we do have some common ground.
What I find frustrating is the tone of frogs criticism.
Left wing ideals re law enforcement have created a fertile environment for mr Laws and much, much worse right wing nutbars to come to the surface.
M. Laws concerns are justified, and as violent crime becomes more wide spread people will end up taking the law into their own hands, the left wing approach to crime is not working.
Taking the moral highground over people like M Laws from an equally flawed position is just bi polar nonsense.
And eredwen, the reason I like frogblog is simple, I can comment on issues that concern me, and become educated on what people with a fundamentally different world view think. I just wish people would actually explain their logic a bit better and not be so dismisive of people trying to gain a better understanding of the world around them! (you pulled me up on a spelling mistake!)
I am sorry if you found my tone a little harsh, I intended no offence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: The greens aren’t liberal. They wish to exert more control over people, not less.
Not according to the political compass analysis of the NZ political parties, BP. Take a look – over at gblog. The Greens show up as more libertarian than even ACT.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
|| Left wing ideals re law enforcement have created a fertile environment for mr Laws and much, much worse right wing nutbars to come to the surface
You have – inadvertently – hit the nail on the head on what is up with this country of late. No one accepts responsibility for their actions anymore.
It’s simply ludicrous to hold the left-wing responsible for the thoughts and ideas of right-wing nutbars. Those nuts are responsible for their own thoughts, just like I’m responsible to my nutty ideas and you are for yours.
Michael’s ideas are Michael’s responsibility. Just like when he said Wanganui was getting too ‘brown’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Numbersix
The left has encouraged people not to take responsibility for their actions!!!!
We have a weak “justice” system, a bossy nanny state a myriad of rules and regulations that treat people like they are stupid and you wonder why no body takes responsibility for their actions??
Do you seriously believe when the left makes a mistake it dosen’t create an equal and opposite reaction??
Cause and effect my friend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmmmmmmmm
>
>>This requires cooperation among various groups and agencies, early intervention, more money (not less) etc … and support and understanding from Kiwis and New Residents at large.
>
MORE MONEY – to add to the current office space shortage in Wellington, that is resulting in new building being erected at breakneck speed, for the government to occupy and spend the more money on! Gaia I hope not. Society must show what it will not tolerate, and show it to its own at a very early age. Right now Gang Members are laughing at the threat of being sent to the naughty corner while they cook up the next batch of P.
>
>>It (ACC) gives money and rehabilitation to people who have had accidents, no matter how careless they were being, but denies this largess to people with conditions like multiple sclerosis.
>
Correct – it is the ACCIDENT Compensation Corporation, not the ANYTHING THAT”S GONE WRONG insurance corporation. Interestingly, there is the ability in the UK to insure against some things to do with birth, multiple births as well as many birth defects, (including MS and SB I think), what is amazing is how few customers it has. I’d start such a business here if I thought that people like this blog contributor would buy a policy, but the analysis tells me they won’t, they expect The Government to pay for nature’s quirks as well as man’s, and as one of the government’s financial backers, I’m not interested in doing that!
>
>>Getting back to the topic of the original post Michael Laws’ bill doesn’t go anywhere far enough. It should be extended to include Boy Scouts ands Girl Guides; both of them are patch wearing youth gangs. They’re far more threatening of (good) social order than mere criminal gangs, they’re openly SUBVERSIVE. Inculating loyalty and patriotism in flagrant defiance of the Free Market Establishment. If they succeed in undermining the spirit of free market capitalism all the efforts of Brad Butterworth and Robbie Deans to make loyalty into a marketable commodity will be lost.
>
As my posting ‘in another place’ will indicate, I have a personal interest in this subject. Suffice it to say that Scouting (including guides) does not inculcate any economic theories on its members, we do offer personal, social, outdoor, survival, inter-racial, song and dance, acting and travel skill development opportunities to our members (whose ages range from 5 to 95). I encourage all who believe in those things, as well as always doing you best and being prepared, to join me in extolling the virtue of the Scouting movement and (especially if you play double bass) invite you to join our revolutionary movement.
NB, the activity I am currently involved in is termed a “Gang” show, and so your proposition that we would be included in Mr. Laws ban would be demonstrably true!
YIS
Hawkeye
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda – your post makes a lot of sense these left wing Nanny state policies we have followed in NZ in the last 10 years have the potentional for a strong right wing back lash in the future. Which is something I find scary, the left sucks at organizing so they can’t seem to organize themselfs out of a paper bag however the Right well they can be the masters of organizing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
08wire have done a transcript of the full English recording – copied below:
I love the bit where he intimates that John Key and Don Brash don’t know much about economics. Wonder what John and Don think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip28
Robbie Deans could have remained with the Crusaders, they certainly didn’t want to lose him. It was the Adidas NZ Rugby Union that wanted to keep him in reserve, so, following traditional free market principles Australian Rugby purchased his loyalty for an undisclosed sum. He will of course, being a true professional, do his utmost to take the Rugby world Cup back to Oz, just as Brad Butterwoth took the America’s cup to Switzerland. Had either of them been fully indoctrinated by the Boy Scouts they would still be operating in NZ; see what can happen when subversive gangs are allowed to run amock.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Robbie Deans wanted to coach at the highest level, something he could no longer do in New Zealand since we already had an coach for the national team. He was mighty pissed with the boards choice so he made the move overseas, I believe he approached the Aussies and offered his services, so how did they purchase his loyalty?
The Robbie Deans incident happens everyday in NZ as NZ does not like achievement we like conformity and mediocrity. Your post michaela highlights this NZ attitude that the needs of an individual are not important and that the “Greater Good” is the only important thing since you argue that he should of stayed at the crusaders instead of advancing his career. This isn’t the free market in operation its the individual trying to achieve to his best ability.
I hope the Australians win the next world cup so as to show to NZ’rs just how stupid we are as a people and how the Australians are so much better than as at achieving things.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
|| Do you seriously believe when the left makes a mistake it dosen’t create an equal and opposite reaction?? Cause and effect my friend.
Which thus means the current ‘left wing’ we have in power now are a cause and effect of the ‘right wing’ who were in power before them. And so on, and so on, and so on. Hmm. Nice excuse for everyone to deny responsibility.
|| The left has encouraged people not to take responsibility for their actions!!!!
No. This is a handy media construction, which you’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda,
Thank you for your reply.
You are obviously very upset about my handling of a “spelling mistake”.
My explanation:
After 20 years teaching “Communications English” to Tertiary students, the “spelling mistake” that you are upset about was dealt with “automatically” by me when I quoted your comment.
I don’t have the right to to change your writing without permission, hence the question mark. (spelling?) This is “shorthand” for (I am assuming that you meant this word to be “thief”?)
Most writers, including me, would rather see their mistakes “corrected” in this way to avoid any possible doubt about the meaning, rather than to have a whole sentence added which says “I am assuming that the writer meant to say …”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The branding of the branding is overt ‘othering’ while avoiding the core debate – at the root of gang empowerment, the 1975 Misuse of Drugs Act.
If we fail to understand how we got in this hole, we cannot hope to ever dig our way out.
snip from UN discussions surrounding drug policy. see http://mildgreens.blogspot.com/2008/08/ungass-review-process.html
Here we outline the key points of discussion, provide a taste of some the debates and issues and highlight the notable aspects of the [UN Vienna consultations] declaration.
During the forum the following issues dominated the proceedings:
• Harm Reduction
• Human Rights
• Fitness for Purpose of the UN Conventions
• Engagement of Drug Users and Other Affected Populations in Drug Policy Analysis
• The Need for a ‘Copernican Revolution’ i.e. Evidence-Based Drug Policy
• Unintended Negative Consequences of the War on Drugs
• A Special Status for Coca Leaf
• Drug Use as a Health Issue
• Distinctions between Drug Use, Misuse, and Abuse
• NGO Potential to Contribute to Drug Policy
• The Shortfall in Medical and Therapeutic Opiates
• Cost Effectiveness
• A Special Status for Cannabis
• Mechanisms for Reviewing Drug Policy
Which makes the posting by kahikatea at 11:11am all the more relevant.
Why should we shy from having the required debate?
It is imperative that the ‘lock-em-up’ (mandatory minimums by any other name) brigade are countered with evidence and due process over rhetoric and blazingly obvious prejudice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blair: “The branding of the branding is overt ‘othering’ while avoiding the core debate…” I agree with the overall thrust of your post. Even though as a conservative I would probably feel that the solution was quite different to what you would believe, I too think we should not shy from having “the required debate” on this. If we have a well-balanced debate then we should come up with a well-balanced solution. Policy at the moment is piecemeal and avoids the real issues.
This is just like the s59 repeal. That was another terrible example of “othering”, using the excuse of child abuse to remove the right to smack your children, while avoiding the core issues (such as broken families and poverty) that actually cause violence.
We need parties that will actually address the core issues, and the current crop (with the possible exception of Act) don’t seem to do that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK
Time to wade into the drug discussion!
I have a view that a person should be able to do what they wish and can afford, with the proviso that they have to be able to afford the consequences of their action and cannot do something that will cause harm to others (e.g. drive while under the influence of one or more drugs, including alcohol).
Today’s society allows laws that are, within themselves, contradictory. I can smoke the leaves of one plant (tobacco) but not another, I can swallow the result of cooking one set of chemicals alcohol) but not another (LSD).
Successive governments have justified this dichotomy on the basis of ‘saving you from yourself’ and ‘not attempting to undo traditions’ (The USA’s attempt at prohibition of alcohol was almost as farcical as its prohibition of cocaine and cannabis, but nowhere near as expensive or unsuccessful).
At issue, in reality, is the issue of “affording the consequences”. Herein starts another topic of discussion that is intricately interwoven with this one – the issue of health service provision. If we continue the concept of accidents having ‘no fault’ and remaining in the domain of ACC, we eliminate the issue of that aspect of health provision, but what others need to be examined? What, specifically, should the many provide for the few through taxation?
We Could eliminate ALL treatment for self inflicted ailments e.g. a person who is known to consume alcohol will have to prove his liver failure has no causal relationship with his alcohol intake to receive publicly funded health service. We could eliminate ALL treatment for ‘quality of life’ ailments e,g, if you want a hip replacement you pay for it yourself because it isn’t life threatening. We could include dignity and comfort in death e.g. someone dying of tobacco induced emphysema or heart disease would receive terminal care. We could include all transmitted ailments e.g. measles, mumps, colds, flu, AIDS, etc are provided as a public service. We could include ALL ailments of children under voting age. We could – well, the list has to be refined and completed, but I think that’s enough to give the idea.
Taking this approach to the provision of public health services is a major change to the current norm, but not unimaginable. It would encourage the use of insurance, even (or perhaps especially) with high premiums for high risk people. It might discourage the use of self-harm substances. Combined with the elimination of a prohibition on ‘drugs’, and a simple transition to making these available through existing channels as OTC ‘medications’, it would eliminate the cost of policing, and border protection against, drugs. It would increase the tax-take, allowing for reduction in income tax perhaps. Most importantly, it would return responsibility for the individual to the individual.
Your thoughts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Very interesting suggestions Strings, and well worth considering. I agree with the principle, but in order to actually get part of it through you would have to start smaller, if it worked on a small scale you could then get the rest of the policy through.
One of the great things about NZ is our public health system. We can know that pretty much whatever happens we will be taken care of somehow (eventually…), and this is reassuring. I would not want to see us in the situation of America where you have poor people who cannot afford basic medical treatment, a public health system is a good thing overall although in some instances it can appear unfair on the taxpayer.
However drugs (especially alcohol) cause a large amount of cost. I believe a very high proportion of emergency department cases are injuries while intoxicated.
One small-scale introductory way of saving money and getting people to be more responsible could be to say if you arrive at the hospital obviously under the influence of something, you are treated then billed for the cost. If you don’t believe you are intoxicated you can have a voluntary blood test to clear you (or incriminate you!). This would be very simple to operate, and would get people to be far more careful with all drugs, without removing too many of the benefits of our public health system. It would also mean sober victims of drunks would still be covered by ACC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
By “I agree with the principle”, I don’t mean I agree with removing bans on all drugs, that is going too far in my mind. I agree with the principles behind the health system suggestions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip28
Whether you call it free market or personal achievement is irrelevant; either way it’s commercial self-interest. Also, regardless of who approached who with an offer that couldn’t be refused is likewise irrelevant. Either way it’s a case of a willing buyer and a willing seller getting together; hence loyalty and patriotism are tradeable commodities.
Had the precepts of Boy Scouts and Girl Guides (that loyalty and patriotism are attributes of character and honour) been operational, neither Deans nor Butterworth would have left NZ. This would have restricted their ability to realise their financial potential and hence been a restriction of trade, which in it’s turn would have constituted a breach of WTO regulations and thus be a direct attack on NZ economic interests. This of course is an act of terrorism as defined in NZ law. Hence my original contention that Michael Laws’ bill doesn’t go far enough is woefully short of the mark. Clearly Scouts and Guides aren’t mere patch wearing subversives, they are terrorist organisations and should be ruthlessly suppressed.
p.s. I wrote that Deans COULD have stayed, not that he SHOULD have stayed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
Thanks for your explanation ,I stand corrected.
numbersix
“No. This is a handy media construction, which you’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker.”
No I don’t believe I have, It is just an observation I have made on the current political climate in NZ.
You maybe correct that the current situation is a reaction to the previous govt, but that shouldn’t stop us debating the current problems due to this Labour led govt.
Individual responsibility is best fostered with as little intervention in peoples lives from the state as possible. I only see an increase in meddling in peoples lives due to the progressive socialist agenda currently opperating.
People learn best by trial and error, trying to remove the errors from society by legislating against them only has the affect of dumbing the population down, which results in more error. The intention is good but it just dosen’t work, you can’t treat intelligent beings like morons. Studies have shown when people are required to think for themselves accidents drop, and rules can be reduced to a minimum.
M. Laws dress code idea is in my opinion an over reaction to the current political climate and is just as invalid , but we shouldn’t be suprised when it happens, M Laws probably would argue he is trying to take responsibility for something that no one else will, and that is understandable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Michaela – I reckon Strings doesn’t really understand irony.
Sapient – a student of what, English ?
It almost makes me weep to read 90% of these posts. For these simple reasons.
Prohibition never works.
Most posters apparently don’t understand the principal behind ACC but despite this still post on the subject.
The ‘war on drugs’ begun by guess who? has been an unmitigated disaster and far more costly than ‘the war on terror’, and equally as ineffective.
Harm reduction is the way to go as proven by all the pilot and other schemes that attempt it, often against great opposition from the lock em up brigade. Remember the US has more than a million drug users locked up and has this ‘solved’ anything? They have also tried ‘just say no’ to which everyone just said no! They have also being supporting anything that doesn’t recommend using a condom to help prevent HIV/AIDS, and the result is a massive increase in infection rates.
I speak from more than 10 years in drug treatment and re-habilitation work, including an accent on harm reduction, and not punitive reaction.
Gangs and uniforms. Mr Laws does not deserve the attention he has received from his assenine writing. Not a very good dancer either ! He is what I call a hollow man. Stick a pin in him and he deflates, noisily.
Obviously the uniform is not the point. Does a person wearing a suit become a ‘suit’ ? No he may just be going to a funeral, or a business meeting/interview too of course.
It is the social conditions that create the conditions where gangs thrive. Michaela makes the point perfectly with her brilliant posts on Scouts and Guides etc. Policing is also poorly done here too vis a vis gang culture.
Call us commies, greenies, tree-huggers, what ever you want to, but we stand for social justice and fairness, not ‘may the devil take the hindmost’, as he has here in NZ. Then complaints are everywhere about what has been inevitably created by this – the ‘devils children’.
We are possibly in for another bout of social unfairness, even worse than that perpetrated by the pseudo ‘Labour’ Party, so I guess we should prepare ourselves for more of the same. Anyone want to go into the prison building and running game with me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
michaela
I won’t sit still for that my dear – Revolutionaries we (the Scout movement) definitely are! Indeed, we have been building our revolution for over a hundred years now, and the impetus is slowly rising (again). But Terrorists – NEVER! Our bombardment of innocent citizens with sausages are there to extract funds for our training camps (hidden behind the legend of “Jamborees”). Our recruiting drives, in churches, schools and colleges, are an education of the minds of the youth of today on the inequities of today’s society who brand all youth, irrespective of root behaviour, with the same tarred brush!
While we may be dealing with little people, remember that a flea can bite the bottom of the Pope in Rome, and little people GROW!
Beware! Our revolution WILL win the country for those who value loyalty, nationalism, self responsibility, freedom of expression, the right to sleep out-doors without harassment and the ability to feed themselves a hot meal cooked on natural renewable heating resources!
IBMKiwi
Ironic that in’t it!
U no!
That an IBMKiwi can’t recognise irony when confronted wiv i’
!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
IBMKiwi
Sorry mate,
JUst reread your post an realised your a reformed druggie!
Well done!
Good on yer!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr. Dennis
Thank you for your endorsement. Personally I would go for the gusto in one fell swoop, with maybe a six-month lead in period so people could be educated on what was happening and why.
The key point of my concept is that NO ONE would be left to die without care, but treatment for self imposed illness (note, I do not include injury here, though I do agree that DWI would be a case for investigation), other than terminal care, would not be provided, to ANYONE through the public system.
This terminal care postulation does raise an few issues, as the type of care required is more aligned with the traditional concept of a nurse than the modern, university graduate, concept. I remember being told by a nurse, who only worked with terminal patients, that when the doctors gave up, only a nurse was ;left that could, with their training and vocational approach to their work, provide comfort and dignity to the patient. Today there are no patients, nurses, especially those in the community, are required to call the people they provide service to ‘clients’ as if they were lawyers or accountants. Mind you, I’m sure there are still nurses out there who don’t find it ‘professionally inappropriate’ to rub a bum or ease in an enema as those of old did every day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BBK, a student of the humanities accually with a major in psychology and special interest area of forensic psychology. if I was an english major one would hope i wouldint make as many spelling and gramatical mistakes as i commonly do. though i dont know what your getting at? i cant really be bothered sifting through to find my last post.
I agree with strings approach to drugs and health care for self inflicted ailments, i beleive i have advocated similar approaches several times on this blog, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings:
The problem is, how do you define a self-inflicted ailment? Was that liver damage actually caused by alcohol, or not? Was that cancer genetic or due to too much time sunbathing? This is very hard to actually administer, and would end up being unfair somewhere.
I agree with the principle. For example, cervical cancer is a 100% preventable disease. It is caused by the HPV virus, which is sexually transmitted (and is common because a condom offers little protection). If you don’t sleep around (ie only ever have sex with one person, who also only has sex with you, best ensured by both of you waiting for marriage for sex) you have virtually nil risk of cervical cancer. If you choose to sleep around or have sex with someone who has, you are willfully placing yourself at risk. Because of this I oppose state funding of the HPV vaccine – if someone wishes to place themself at risk they can buy it themself.
But the problem is that you are dealing with teenagers (read: impulsive idiots). Teenagers do things on impulse without considering the consequences. Some are bound to act foolishly however much you educate them. Should the state help them pay for the consequences or not? This is a difficult question, and the best answer would differ on an issue-by-issue basis.
That is why I suggest, if such a policy were to be used, using it on injuries instead. Cause and effect is much more obvious in injuries than in illness. The consequences are immediate.
If someone thinks “If I get stoned, fall off the balcony and break my arm I will have to pay for the treatment” it is a large incentive to behave sensibly. However “If I smoke too much dope, one day in the distant future I might get lung cancer or brain damage” is little incentive to behave sensibly at all – teenagers don’t consider the distant future.
This means people actually regulate drug use to avoid medical bills in the present, and as a side-effect also reduce medical bills and their cost to society in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis
Interesting perspective. Let me ramble off the top of my head as I usually think best with my mouth (I use a voice recognition thingy!)
If a person is a heavy drinker then the liver damage should be attributed to self infliction; a genetic predisposition that is recognised prior to the person attaining legal majority (i.e. 18 at the moment) would be even stronger indication that heavy drinking has been a contributing factor. The definition of “heavy” would be the subject of parliamentary debate I imagine.
HPV vaccination I have a difference with you on. I know of a woman who died of AIDS transmitted to her by her husband on their wedding night when she gave him her virginity. STDs are, in my personal view, often transmitted without the recipient knowing their partner in the act was infected. While I see your point with regard to the mortals of the situation, I do not think it appropriate to legislate morals, my view is that government should be of laws not people. Having raised four impulsive idiots (still raising one and he’s well beyond his teens – all intellect no common sense- I totally understand your position, and hope you understand mine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem with making the distinction on the grounds of whether a condition is self-inflicted or not is that often you can’t tell from the nature of the condition whether it is self-inflicted or not. Take lung cancer for example. It seems that about 85% of people who develop lung cancer are current or former smokers, so there are still 15% who cannot have caught it from smoking. Those statistics are likely to be reasonably accurate, as there’s no incentive to lie. But if only those who had not been smokers were treated for it, there would be a huge incentive for former smokers with lung cancer to claim they had never been smokers, and the health system would have to spend a lot of money on private investigators to find out whether each lung cancer patient was a former smoker or not.
and that’s without getting into the question of whether some of the older smokers knew much about the risks before they became addicted, and whether the fact that one person manages to break the addiction proves that another person could have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings: With regards to HPV, certainly STDs are transmitted without knowing the partner was infected. But by choosing to sleep with them they are knowingly placing themselves at higher risk, should I have to pay for the consequences with my tax money? Or should they pay for their own vaccinations and insurance? I understand it is an emotive issue for many, your friend with AIDS being a case in point. But it was possible to know that her husband had AIDS and either avoid marrying him or freely choose to run the risk of infection – should society pay the cost of that choice? Possibly society should out of kindness. But if society should pay the cost of that, then to be consistent society should also pay the cost of other choices, such as the choice to use drugs. The issue is consistency.
With regards to liver damage, how do you know they were a heavy drinker? Will they admit it, knowing it will cost them dearly? Will their spouse or mates front up? It could become a he said / she said legal battle. Then there is the issue of what counts as “heavy” drinking.
But if he had to pay the cost of medical treatment if he fell over while drunk & broke his arm, that might discourage him from drinking heavily in the first place, and thus avoid both the broken arm and later liver damage. Far simpler, far more effective, far less money to pay to lawyers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikitea:
“and that’s without getting into the question of whether some of the older smokers knew much about the risks before they became addicted”
Good point. Bearing that in mind, to make them pay for the costs now could be regarded as retrospective legislation – they are now liable for something in the past that they were not liable for at the time. Injury however is all in the present, so legislation around injury is not retrospective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Personal observation leads me to believe that a biopsy of a lung will immediately show if a person has been a significant smoker or not. If the patient has reached the point of ‘remission’, which I am advised takes something of the order of three years ‘remission’ for every year as a smoker, I would suggest they should receive treatment – again, a view that would be no more than a contribution to a debate that would have to be held
Good comments thought, thanks you.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That only helps in the specific issue of lung cancer. If this policy were to be implemented it would apply to many different ailments, many of which would have no basis of medical ‘proof’. And even medical proof can be debated in court, and as a tricky issue it would take a lot of debate…
The lawyers would cast a gold statue in your honour!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Measure it on the basis of social cost;
Treat all diseases; though if it is a disease that is known to be caused commonly by abuse of substances or other such self-induced instances and can be shown to of been caused in that instance by that abuse then the patient should foot the cost.
Prevention should always be funded as the costs of prevention are almost always substantially smaller. so in the cases of STD’s, influenza, etc immunisations should be paid for and treatments should also be paid for as that prevents further contamination.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
as of this sunday (see Michael Laws’ column in the Sunday Star Times 23 November) Michael Laws adds to his list of sub human groups the “brown” underclass. It appears that Michael Laws does not believe that “brown people” of the underclass should “not be allowed to breed.” How does one even begin to respond to something like that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
haha please correct decaffeinated grammar – i mean to say:
“it appears that Michael laws does not believe that “brown people” of the underclass should be “allowed to breed” “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmm..gotta remember he’s a shock-jock; the aspect of his life he seems to enjoy most and is undoubtedly qualified for.
I got phone calls from all over the World asking me if this guy really called the newly deceased King of Tonga (Unrepeatable) on-air; sadly yes – as with the “thick-fingered grape picking” comment from one of our Ministers, it’s exactly the thing that makes us look incredibly foolish – not just in Europe, but world wide.
It’s why I keep telling Chippie that, sadly, yes, we are one of the more racistic countries to be found
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It was a shocking article on sunday from Laws. I thought about blogging it but didn’t want to give it any oxygen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Laws had a point, though.
What we’re doing – softly, softly, politically correct, , welfarism, education, Maori solutions, CYF, childrens commissioner – isn’t working.
I suggest drawing up a list of the at-risk demographic, and target them specifically. This won’t happen, because the wet left will cry persecution.
Meanwhile, kids die….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Laws’ only legitimate point was that the level of abuse in NZ is an outrage. Otherwise, it was just bigoted, blaming claptrap. Gee, whenever we mention a targeted demographic, the right accuses us of pandering to special interests and not treating people equally! Meanwhile, kids die… Make up our mind, IceBaby!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
You are often wrong but on this topic you have reached new depths.
It is people like you who are a big part of the problem, you would rather see kids die than face the brutal truth.
Sadly this type of political correct thinking is one of the main reasons that our kids (and yes most of them will be brown kids) will continue to die.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>whenever we mention a targeted demographic, the right accuses us of pandering to special interests
I’m all for targeting.
Political correctness and notions of “equality” have got us into this mess. It will not get us out.
The reality is that some people are simply not capable of raising children. They should neither be tolerated or encouraged.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Froggo – that’s a laugh. I did not read the article, but, in terms of sheer abuse, Mr Laws would be close to taking out the title of No1 offender in NZ – mainly because of his high profile.
Perhaps he’s one of those who thinks, “if it’s only verbal, it’s not violence”.
As for, ‘targetting’ – it’s a deeply flawed notion. A friend recently visited from overseas – “Mark”, he says in an anguished whisper, “They asked what RACE I was at the Airport!!!!”
I had to laugh, remembering my own response – a red line through the question, and “Does NOT Discriminate” written across the answers.
We are wrong all day, every day on this….until New Zealanders are equal, we will continue to regress.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)