Perhaps we should call him the Member for Right Bloggistan.

Hilarity ensues!

Jesus, “odd” doesn’t quite plumb the depths, does it?

To be fair Clint, I think Act has more than it’s share of unusual sorts. This is, after all, the party of Muriel Newman, purveyor of curious, crypto-racist narratives of New Zealand history (the Chinese got here first, you know …) and someone who supplied email addresses reaped in her official capacity to her husband’s investment marketing business.

The party of Trevor Loudon, who was elected to senior party office even as he continued to champion the bizarre Scientology-offshoot cult of which he has been a member since the days they palled around with neo-Nazis.

The party of Owen Jennings, who allowed his Parliamentary office to be used to pitch a get-rich quick scheme that promised a return of $67 million for an outlay of $450,000. (Indeed three businessmen were prepared to publicly state that Jennings himself had personally pitched the scheme to them.)

The party of Stephen Franks, who believes the gay community is so “riddled with pathologies” as to be beyond redemption and after jumping parties continued to complain of his pursuit by the “militant gay media”.

The party of Donna Awatere-Huata. Nuff said.

Face it: Act has a rather high casualty count.

http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,1671,legal_beagle_three_strikes.sm

Graeme Edgeler kicks off with a thoughtful post summarising his concerns about the three strikes law: he’s hardly a wet liberal, but he thinks it’s a bad idea.

A discussion ensues. Garrett arrives, makes statements. Other people address those statements. Garrett loudly claims to have been shouted down, complains about people making generalisations, declares everyone else is a middle-class ignoramus …

He really is … odd

If you don’t support bigots and homophobes having high placements on the party list, just say so.

No party does that – unless you’re living in North Korea and then you have no choice.

Last time I checked there was a policy of keeping things on topic here. My comment above is but I will indulge your questions for you by slipping off topic a little.

I am yes a social liberal in the sense I have no problem with people doing with their own lives what they will so long as they do not impact on anyone else’s rights to life, liberty and property (incidentally that is why I have no trouble supporting three strikes – it is consistent with my views). I am yet to ask David what his views are on homosexual rights. Until I do I don’t know where he stands (and I won’t rely on you to tell me what you think). I don’t particularly care what he thinks of individuals or lifestyles – as an individual he is entitled to make up his own mind. However I would have concerns if he thought the role of the state was to start treating people differently based on their sexuality (or for that matter, race, skin colour, gender).

I will say that there will no doubt be areas where David and I disagree – as well as Rodney, Heather, John and Roger. It is the nature of humans to disagree with one another, just as it is to work with one another. The key is looking to what unites rather than what divides. David may have a plethora of ideas I find anathema (I won’t know till I ask), however his raison d’etre at this stage is three strikes. I support him on that – and I think he has done a fairly reasonable job with it. In the past I have spoken out publicly against our MPs who I have disagreed with on issues such as civil unions – so I am no sheep in party colours. If such situations arise in the future then I will do so again. No sense crossing hypothetical bridges now though.

Sure, Mike, but by that logic we should just have the universal death penalty for all crimes. After all, criminals do know that crime is illegal and we have a police force to enforce the law. So they’ve been warned about even offending in the first place, right?

I remember you being very candid and open in a couple of discussions on this site before the election and I remarked then on how refreshing it was, coming from a politician. That’s why I was in fact looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I still am, despite your patronising rudeness above.

Read the question again.

I’m not asking you what you think about the 3 strikes law – I’m not that interested in it. I’m also not asking you about the bill of rights act – I know you’re not interested in it.

I’m asking you what you think about Garrett being so socially conservative and representing a bunch of supposed social liberals. I’m talking about his views on, for example, homosexuality.

If you’re just going to spin party lines then yes, you’ve wasted your time but I thought you were better than that.

Let’s not delude ourselves that you give a fuck what I think. It’s pretty clear you’re trying to shit stir and think you’re clever for it, but what the hell.

I have no problem with the three strikes law. It is consistent with my principles – one of which is that the first role of the state is to protect its citizens. I believe this bill does that more effectively than the status quo.
I am happy that ACT has someone like David Garrett in Parliament promoting this bill. He has pushed well for this legislation. Obviously still a long way to go, but on a bill that awakens the ire of lefties, you want a strong champion.

That does not mean I think he is correct in saying we should change the BORA. He needed in my opinion to come out and say that it was not inconsistent in his view and explain why – there are plenty of reasons to back that up. I think his response is somewhat conditioned by hearing years of PC claptrap about the rights of criminals when there was no one clamouring for the rights of victims. And to be honest I would be fairly certain the majority of NZ would support his bill because of that very sentiment and to keep NZ safe(r than the status quo).

As for the list – you’re speaking to a guy that said he didn’t care where he was ranked so long as he wasn’t in any danger of getting elected. The angle you are working on is futile – I don’t resent those ranked above me.

Now that I have wasted my time giving you my thoughts, how about you respond to a few questions?

1. isn’t your newfound staunch support of the BORA a little hypocritical given your stance on the EFA?
2. what would you say to the families of more than 77 people who would be alive today, had the three strikes law been enacted 30 years ago, as an explanation as to why you don’t support a law which would have kept their loved ones alive?
3. Do you think someone who has been convicted on two separate occasions and been warned on two separate occasions, for violent offences, would be treated unfairly by being put away for 25 to life – despite knowing the consequences of their actions?

I actually do look forward to your thoughts.

“So what? Alter the Bill of Rights Act. We’ve got too hung up on people’s rights.’

How kind of you to judge one MP in the ACT Party and apply it to the remaining MPs.

It’s a party Clint. A collective. OH MY GOD NO WE’RE NOT WE’RE ALL INDIVIDUALS!!!

If you don’t want to be judged as a group then run as independents. A bigot like Garrett would drag down the reputation of any party. Oh well, you know what they say about laying down with dogs.

But love your selected quoting, it does make one look rather vicious towards rights. I believe the full quote was:

“I’m actually more interested in a victim’s rights than a criminal’s rights. We are talking about the “rights” of someone who has served at least two sentences for violent offending and just been sentenced to a third lot.

“I’m not interested in that person’s rights quite frankly. He should have the rights to be fed adequately, to get medical care and not to get tortured – and that’s it.”

Probably too extreme for you guys but if I was a victim of a criminal who would qualify under the 3 strikes policy, then I wouldn’t be too concerned about his human rights The law isn’t for everybody, only violent and repeatedly violent offenders.

Since you’re so against this boys, will you write a post about what YOU would do instead.