Banning gang patches is a waste of time
SNPA / Ross Setford © Enlarge photo
National MP for Rotorua Todd McClay should not be allowed to ban gang patches.
His latest piece of legislation that attempts to crack down on patches for gangs like the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, or the Tribesman in public buildings is a blatant restriction on freedom of expression, though he sees it as a stepping stone to later ban gangs altogether.
Like hate speech laws, a ban on gang patches doubles-up provisions that already exist in the statute books.
For example human rights lawyer Robert Hesketh said yesterday in a NZ Newswire piece: “the ‘unnecessary’ bill should not proceed past its select committee stage, unless it is rewritten to include a requirement that the gang insignia it covers tends to intimidate the public or incite confrontation between gangs.”
As Labour MP Andrew Little pointed out in Parliament back in August, “It is an attempt at gesture-politics that will do nothing…it is poorly motivated.”
From a cynical perspective, I would imagine if that if Parliament voted tomorrow, unanimously, to ban particular gangs altogether, then the level of gang involvement in illegal activity would not change in the slightest.
By their very nature, gangs are covert and hidden, carrying out their foul and vile deeds under dead of night, within their own run-down houses, and the homes of others. So to ban their symbols in clean and pristine public buildings is arbitrary – it serves no other purpose but to infringe on freedom of speech.
Police Association president Greg O'Connor warns us not to underestimate the power of gang patches: "It's all about the patch, “he says, “People die for disrespecting the patch.” This should be taken in to account, but through other means. For example: wearing a patch when you’re arrested? Police can confiscate it, permanently if you’re convicted of said crime. It’s as simple as that.
Just as we are all equally able to express ourselves in public through speech, images, and the written word, we are all equally culpable under the law for the actions we carry out. Wearing a gang symbol while carrying out a pack-rape of a 12-year-old girl does not make that crime any more severe or disgusting, but evidence of a culture of violence that ought to be crushed from its foundations.
Todd McClay’s attempt to both ban patches and gangs themselves is ultimately arbitrary, as it does not address the root causes of membership: poverty, systemic violence, and a sense of belonging in desperate situations. Instead, it proves to be a threat to our fundamental liberty.- < Previous
- Next >
Latest
- 7:20 pm Mental health patients fight smoking ban
- 7:14 pm Petrol victim withdrew $30k before death
- 6:29 pm Cost of pension going up $2.5b
- 6:25 pm Staff begin to move into new hospital
- 6:18 pm Road still closed after logging truck smash
- 6:15 pm Take care in fog, urge police
- 6:14 pm Taxpayers fund $1.2b protection for Air NZ
- 6:12 pm Teachers could cough up for reformed Council
- 6:10 pm No charges for fake CTV engineer
- 6:07 pm Key leaves baby decision to the Speaker
Opinion
-
Ken Ring
May 14, 11:46 amWhy climate is unlikely to be changingHumans walk at about three miles an hour, and run at around five. It is the shape and musculature of the human body that determines this. We are nei...
-
James Robins
May 15, 2:33 pmAP, DOJ, GCSBI've joined Twitter. Follow me here: @James_ARobins“Freedom of the Press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose” – G...
-
On the radar
May 10, 8:59 amSoldier gets sucked out of planeThis video captures the split-second moment a US soldier is sucked out of a plane.When his parachute ripcord is triggered as he crouches on the open ...
47 Comments
Ban patches? - why. Gang members are merely a group of individuals who are not capable of distinguishing themselves by their own talents or abilities. Many politicians fall into that category as well and the clown who proposed this ban is such an example. Is it not better to prevent the perceived need to be recognised because of a piece of cloth? Tighten eligibility to DPB, the number of children women have while on the DPB. Restrict access to the dole unless applicants have worked for at least five years. If that means they grub gorse, pick fruit, pick up rubbish generally tossed by their own ilk then so be it. Nobody owes them a living.
ReplyLisa I agree with your comments. Although gang patches may well intimidate the public which is worrying. Gangs are going to be a hard problem to solve and I’d like to see more innovation. Politicians need to reach out to the people who spend a lot of time philosophizing about societies problems. We need cunning, brute force is not likely to work with gangs.
ReplyI do not like gangs..however I guess a Patch shows that they are associated with gangs..so be on guard. National has their emblem...and they could be to a lot, considered a gang...especially with the "I do not remember, I can't recall"...makes one think like that there is something to hide when one comes up with that continuously. (devious sayings)
Replyi've worked in the corporate world. I've seen suit and ties at conferences, smoking P, smoking dope, pissed and openly crude. I do not condone the intimidation of gangs, but there are more dangerous gangs that wear patches made by reputable fashion houses. My point is, what is the difference? it is a fundamental human need to belong. One begs the question, what has happened to these people, to seek a sense of belonging from any group that is hell bent on self destruction. What have we done as a community to instil a sense of belonging towards each other. Mr Todds needs to provide these answers, not ostricise any one group. He will unwittingly create more gangs.
ReplyMaybe they're looking at it the wrong way? Rather than ban them, it would be more interesting if there was a law that made it compulsory for gang members (and associates) to wear a patch. That way we would know who the assholes are, and not have to guess.
Reply