Buyer’s remorse

69 comments on “Buyer’s remorse ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   3 March 2009 at 12:43 pm

   Garret is the oik!
2. John Dalley 2

   3 March 2009 at 12:56 pm

   Enok Powell look a-like anyone
   • Snail 2.1

     3 March 2009 at 3:22 pm

     Enoch if you don’t mind.

     Otherwise agee the resemblance… a tad younger.. and the feller here would lack EP’s nous and military courage.. not to mention sensibility. Twas, after all, Ted Heath’s opposition and singular obsession/s upon which Enoch foundered..

     Oh yes, and because I’d promised a reader here greater clarity on the point, Enoch Powell did not say “Berminggam” (brumlike) of the city Birmingham in the British midlands. Nay, too public school for that.
3. MikeE 3

   3 March 2009 at 12:59 pm

   So what exactly do you have a problem with the 3 strikes law?

   Every “strike” the violent offender gets warned about the consequences.

   Its a fucking social contract, its not like the offenders can argue “oh I couldn’t help it” or “I didn’t know” the whole process takes years of offending to come into effect.

   Its pretty much.

   I muder someone, I get found guilty and sentanced. As part of my sentance I am warned of the law and consequences.

   Then I serve my sentance, get out, go and viciously assault someone. I’m caught, go through the legal process, and and found guilty and sentanced. I’m warned that this is my last chance, or I’m in jail for good. I better sort my shit out, or its the slammer. Hardly rocket science or violating my human rights here.

   I serve the years of my jail term and get out. I decide to commit another violent crime. Get caught, sentanced etc.

   I’ve had multiple chances to turn my life around, and stop assaulting, robbing, raping or murdering but I don’t. I’m in Jail for good. I’ve been warned multiple times, and the whole process has taken years, probably most of my life. I’m what one would describe as a bad bastard. Its hardly a violation of my rights to keep me locked up.

   Its very simple.

   If you don’t want to be locked away for the rest of your natural life, do not Murder, do not rape, do not assault etc.

   Very very simple.

   Yes I would be worried about violations or rights if this included offenses such as petty theft, white collar crime, drug violations etc – but it doesn’t. IT only includes offenses that involve deliberate, premedidated physical harm on innocent people.

   [stand back you oiks, MikeE and David Garret know more about human rights than youse (including youse like me who have law degrees) and Crown Law put together! SP]
4. Matthew Pilott 4

   3 March 2009 at 1:12 pm

   “So what exactly do you have a problem with the 3 strikes law?”

   Hmm, the fact that it is a refutation of our entire justice system, with no evidence that punishment is better than rehabilitation, plus I don’t fancy the idea of those people getting out after 25 years with no chance at parole, nor incentive to behave, nor ANY focus on rehabilitation. I’ll probably be long gone before that happens, but pity the fools who aren’t.

   That’s off the top of my head. Imagine what I could find wrong with your moronic law if I thought it had a show of getting through and really cared. Never thought I’d say this, but I have faith in National not to pull off something so idiotic, even though this means I’m relying on National to save me from ACT. Well thanks to jeebus it ain’t the other way around.
5. Matthew Pilott 5

   3 March 2009 at 1:15 pm

   And Garrett is really showing his class isn’t he?

   “Mr Garrett, a former legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, said the concerns were not Mr Finlayson’s personally but those of “some oik in Crown Law”.”

   From Cambridge: Oik (n) “a rude and unpleasant man from a low social class.

   Who voted this scum into parliament?
   • higherstandard 5.1

     3 March 2009 at 2:03 pm

     “Who voted this scum into parliament?”

     No-one … ladies and gentleman I give you MMP.
     • Matthew Pilott 5.1.1

       3 March 2009 at 2:11 pm

       The correct answer is ‘everyone who voted ACT’.
       • higherstandard 5.1.1.1

         3 March 2009 at 2:14 pm

         I’d suggest that the correct answer is everyone who voted for MMP.
         • Matthew Pilott 5.1.1.1.1

           3 March 2009 at 2:19 pm

           I guess the man would be unelectable on his own right in an electorate. I’ll actually concede the point, HS.
         • Felix 5.1.1.1.2

           3 March 2009 at 10:39 pm

           I’d give you both a cookie.
         • higherstandard 5.1.1.1.3

           4 March 2009 at 6:37 pm

           Does it have any of that crap from China in it ?
6. Felix 6

   3 March 2009 at 1:28 pm

   Assuming that there are some social liberals among the act fan club, how do they feel about this waste of oxygen sitting at no. 5 on their list?

   I realise they don’t have any say in the list but do they have an opinion? Does the leadership allow them to voice it?

   Gay rights? Gender issues? Racial tolerance? You happy with this caveman representing you?
   • peteremcc 6.1

     3 March 2009 at 4:09 pm

     the problem is that you left liberals don’t distinguish between positive and negative rights.

     i support basic negative rights that don’t impinge on other people’s rights.

     i don’t support rights that allow people out to murder repeatedly, the same way I don’t think you have a right to a house (ie: a right to force someone to build you a house) or a right to a job (ie: a right to force someone to give you one).
     • Felix 6.1.1

       3 March 2009 at 4:25 pm

       Thanks for ignoring the question.

       So how do you feel about this homophobic bigot being higher on the list of “the liberal party” than you?
     • Tane 6.1.2

       3 March 2009 at 4:31 pm

       peteremcc – your construct of negative versus positive rights is self-serving bullshit. When you stop forcing me to pay for policemen to protect your property and courts to enforce your contracts I’ll start taking you seriously.
7. toad 7

   3 March 2009 at 1:57 pm

   http://www.act.org.nz/david-garrett

   Before entering Parliament at the 2008 election, David Garrett was a barrister practising in Albany, Auckland, as well as in Tonga where he lived from 1999 to 2003. David now lives on a lifestyle block near Helensville with his wife and two young children.

   David was a legal advisor to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, and writes occasional opinion pieces on legal issues for a number of publications. He is also frequently called upon to comment in the media on law and order issues.

   David helped to write ACT’s ‘Three Strikes And Your Out’ policy and is fast developing a reputation as New Zealand’s most bigoted and neanderthalic Member of Parliament.
   • higherstandard 7.1

     3 March 2009 at 2:06 pm

     I believe there’s a short clip of him here
     • vto 7.1.1

       3 March 2009 at 2:15 pm

       LOL. where do you guys find all this shit?

       Nothing like a good bit of bigoted abuse and taking the mick from other groups eh. Leave us neanderthals alone..
       • higherstandard 7.1.1.1

         3 March 2009 at 2:19 pm

         2 sec search on youtube.
         • vto 7.1.1.1.1

           3 March 2009 at 2:24 pm

           oh, like this you mean HS… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4nWToa8G8

           (cant do the blue highlight thingy)

           edit: oh it does it itself kind of
         • Felix 7.1.1.1.2

           3 March 2009 at 4:27 pm

           Heh, never picked you as a metalhead hs.
           Your band is pretty tight.
8. dave 8

   3 March 2009 at 2:05 pm

   hmm, it sounds like he’s a piece of work. Does he have any portfolios??
9. DeeDub 9

   3 March 2009 at 2:08 pm

   MikeE do you just cut and paste a response on all the blogs?

   http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-medieval-law-and-order-policy-to.html

   Complete with all your ‘muders’ of the English language . . .
   • MikeE 9.1

     3 March 2009 at 3:14 pm

     For the record, I’m not agreeing with Garrets comment on the BORA, I think its a fucking stupid comment and I hope he gets a bollicking for it.

     That said, its pretty fucking rich here, for the readers of the standard to be harping on about the BORA, when only a few months ago, the very same people supported pushing through the Electoral finance act, which was in breach of the BORA.

     My belief is that its not in breech of the BORA.

     The BORA says:

     “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.”

     Which is fair enough. Now my arguemnt is it can’t possibly be disproportiantely severe treatment or punishment if the offender is warned against reoffending, knowing the consequences and does it anyway. That to me sounds like a social contract. And in my opinion thats what Garret should have said.
     • Lew 9.1.1

       3 March 2009 at 3:22 pm

       MikeE,

       Now my arguemnt is it can’t possibly be disproportiantely severe treatment or punishment if the offender is warned against reoffending, knowing the consequences and does it anyway.

       The trouble is that terms like `disproportionately severe treatment or punishment’ are in our legislation as part of our compliance with international conventions on justice, such as those of the UN. You might not think there is any injustice in someone receiving a 25-year term for an offence with an ordinary maximum sentence of 10 years, but that’s pretty much the definition of `disproportionate’.

       You could, as Garrett tacitly suggests, that we rescind our membership to those conventions – but that’s a pretty big call just for the privilege of keeping the Sensible[sic] Sentencing Trust on-side, wouldn’t you agree?

       L
     • Pascal's bookie 9.1.2

       3 March 2009 at 3:25 pm

       I think the dispropotionate part might mean that you can’t give wildy differing sentences for the same offense. It could also mean that some punishments are too severe for some offenses. Either way, your ‘fair warning’ thing doesn’t provide an escape hatch.
     • QoT 9.1.3

       4 March 2009 at 12:00 am

       it can’t possibly be disproportiantely severe treatment or punishment if the offender is warned against reoffending,

       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?
10. Ben R 10

    3 March 2009 at 2:13 pm

    “From Cambridge: Oik (n) “a rude and unpleasant man from a low social class.”

    Umm, I thought people on here were supportive of those from the working class? But this comment reflects the kind of elitist snobbery those on the left would normally berate if it came from a kiwiblogger?
    
    IrishBill: we are. That’s why when some bigot uses a pejorative class-based term (as Garrett has done) we berate them.
    • higherstandard 10.1

      3 March 2009 at 2:16 pm

      “elitist snobbery”

      Damn your eyes sir !

      Quick chaps time for some chardonnay and hand wringing to calm the nerves.
11. Ben R 11

    3 March 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Matthew, can you cite some studies on the effectiveness of rehabilitation? I am not a fan of a three strikes law, and agree rehab is the ideal. But where’s the evidence of effective rehab programmes & what kind of offenders best respond to them?
    • Matthew Pilott 11.1

      3 March 2009 at 2:28 pm

      Ben R, it’s the entire foundation for Western jurisprudence.

      Compare and contrast with chopping someone’s arm of if they thieve your bread, or cutting their tongue out if they blaspheme or mock Ahmadinejad’s naff sports coat.

      So I don’t mean rehabilitation as a programme per se, but the idea that our justice system is meant to reform, not punish*. If that’s a debate we want to have as a society, then lets have it, without resorting to talking about ‘victims rights’ as a cover. Bacause that’s all that talk is – elevating one group’s rights over those of society as a whole. That’s not a good way to frame a debate, is it?.

      *note that it is also meant to protect – and the general philosophy, again, is that rehabilitation and reformation means people are safer overall. If we punish, those punished and back out on the streets will be angrier, and we’ll only be safe if those who are angry are rational enough to recognise punishment as a deterrent, as opposed to something to be avoided after comitting a crime.

      Haven’t got a specific study for this stuff, but I believe it’s more fundamental that that, if that makes sense. Kim Workman had some useful comments recently – smart sentencing vs stronger sentences.
      • peteremcc 11.1.1

        3 March 2009 at 4:12 pm

        can someone explain which part of the three strikes bill has an affect whatsoever on the rehabilitation that we do at the moment?
        • Matthew Pilott 11.1.1.1

          3 March 2009 at 5:41 pm

          Sure. The bit where you get locked up, with no focus on rehabilitation whatsoever.

          Currently, you go to jail and the focus is on rehabilitation. Good behaviour, parole, that sort of thing. All out the window with three strikes – it removes the focus and incentives from rehabilitation to one of retribution and punishment. The reactionary crowd cheers for this, I say it will make NZ a more dangerous place.
12. dave 12

    3 March 2009 at 2:19 pm

    no, they are calling a rude unpleasant man (David Garrett) a hick, a hill billy, a slack jawed inbred… which is a fair call, his response to our escalating violent crime is a knee jerk reaction that hasn’t worked in America, how would it work here? It just breeds more crime
13. BLiP 13

    3 March 2009 at 2:28 pm

    Mike E said:

    ” . . .So what exactly do you have a problem with the 3 strikes law? . . . ”

    Its a draconian, pre-Christian Old Testement eye-for-eye approach to justice. Might as well hand the courts over to the sharia imams.

    If I was down for two strikes already, might as well go beserk on the third one if there’s a chance of getting caught – might as well get locked up for murder as for assault.
14. Stephen 14

    3 March 2009 at 2:29 pm

    I have the impression Lindsay Mitchell is an ACT-oid, and she’s pretty pissed off:
    http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/
    • BLiP 14.1

      3 March 2009 at 3:17 pm

      hahahaha – its her husband who’s pissed off – what a sad example of the surrendered wife syndrome.
15. Tigger 15

    3 March 2009 at 2:37 pm

    This issue will be a good test for the NACTMA government, just as the seabed and foreshore matter will be.

    I can’t see how Finlayson, for example, could vote for three strikes given his remarks about the BORA. Same with Power. Any of the new Nats in certain electorates voting for it will be pilloried (Auckland Central and Maungakiekie for example aren’t electorates that would support this law one would have thought). T’will be an interesting debate.

    Meanwhile, ACT desperately need a win as a party to ensure they’re not irrelevant and this is one of their key planks. Speaking of ACT I’m getting a whole ‘Flowers in the Attic’ feel from National about their right-wing partners who are pretty much MIA – are all the ACT MPs hidden in some special prison somewhere?.
    • gingercrush 15.1

      3 March 2009 at 2:53 pm

      So your saying people in those electorates don’t care for longer sentences? Please provide evidence of that.
      • peteremcc 15.1.1

        3 March 2009 at 4:25 pm

        I’d say theres some pretty decent evidence to the opposite, given that it was a pretty key National party pledge, and guess what, those electorates changed hands…
        • Pascal's bookie 15.1.1.1

          3 March 2009 at 8:38 pm

          “given that it was a pretty key National party pledge”

          Which was? 3 strikes or altering the BORA? Certainly giving ACT major wins wasn’t a Key pledge.

          Exactly the opposite in fact. I remember he called them a bunch of far right fringe dwellers (or words to that effect).
16. Ben R 16

    3 March 2009 at 2:43 pm

    “David Garret know more about human rights than youse (including youse like me who have law degrees) and Crown Law put together! SP]”

    Then you’d realise that there can be reasonable limits on rights. As I pointed out on the other thread, the right to freedom from discrimination is limited by ethnic funding in health or affirmative action programmes. What amounts to reasonable limits means is obviously debatable, but rights aren’t unlimited.
17. Ianmac 17

    3 March 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Ben R: I can’t point to a direct reference re rehabilitation. But the decision in Canada was to spend on rehabilitation/prevention and cut down on longer sentences. (The opposite of USA plan where longer sentences and less rehab lead to the high prison muster, as being developed in NZ.)
18. Ben R 18

    3 March 2009 at 2:48 pm

    “Ben R, it’s the entire foundation for Western jurisprudence.”

    I thought that sentencing had numerous justifications, including punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence & incapacitation.

    Punishment seems based on an outmoded idea of justice, but incapacitation is particularly important if someone is especially high risk.
    • Matthew Pilott 18.1

      3 March 2009 at 3:41 pm

      You’re right, for example there is always the preventative detention option, which is clearly geared towards incarceration and not rehabilitation. But that’s used when someone is considered to be completely unfit for rehabilitation.

      In that case we’re saying that our old ideas won’t work – someone isn’t going to be better, we’ve given up on them and we’re not letting them out unless they prove that they are fit to be let out.

      That doesn’t apply here – it’s an untidy effort to implement a cheap fix to a problem in the too-hard basket. I honestly wonder why people are happy to shunt our problems on to future generations – in 35 years or so, the first of these 3-strikers would be getting out. Does anyone think that this law will keep us safe from them after that? It’s such a flawed and short-term solution.

      That’s why MikeE can only argue by saying it doesn’t violate the BORA. That’s the best there is to say for it – maybe it doesn’t violate fundamental human rights, I think. Super…
19. Ben R 19

    3 March 2009 at 2:50 pm

    “Ianmac
    March 3, 2009 at 2:43 pm
    Ben R: I can’t point to a direct reference re rehabilitation. But the decision in Canada was to spend on rehabilitation/prevention and cut down on longer sentences. (The opposite of USA plan where longer sentences and less rehab lead to the high prison muster, as being developed in NZ.)”

    The higher level of sentencing in the US lead to reduced crime rates. Although, as I’ve posted previously, even more cost effective is increasing police numbers (see the paper below).

    “Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors That Explain the Decline and Six That Do Not.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2004, 18(1), pp. 163-90.

    http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
20. The Voice of Reason 20

    3 March 2009 at 3:39 pm

    “David helped to write ACT’s ‘Three Strikes And Your Out’ policy “.

    ‘Your out’? Is he their spokesman on education as well?

    John D:

    Not just an Enoch Powell lookalike, but a bit of the Lord Lucan about him, too. Now there’s a man with strong views on crime and punishment!
21. Joshua 21

    3 March 2009 at 3:53 pm

    It’s becoming increasingly obvious why National were so keen on getting the support of the Maori party.
22. Rex Widerstrom 22

    3 March 2009 at 4:30 pm

    So I’m assuming the media are camped on this clown’s doorstep, demanding he front up to some hard-hitting interviews (i.e. not with Paul Henry) to explain his contempt for the rights of every New Zealander he supposedly represents?

    And of course the interviewer will be armed with meticulous research annotations from the Magna Carta on, so as not to allow the debate to become diverted on “three strikes” (as it has here), because for someone who’s taken an oath to uphold the law to express his utter contempt for it is surely prima facie justification for his impeachment and removal from office.

    That’s still the role of the Fourth Estate, right? To demand accountability from our “representatives”? Or is it to sell dodgy investments and show us pictures of celebrity boobies? Sorry, I don’t get out much… it’s just that I was under the impression we still had a functioning democracy.
23. Billy 23

    3 March 2009 at 4:39 pm

    Mmmmm.

    Celebrity boobies…
24. Felix 24

    3 March 2009 at 4:55 pm

    It’s not the first time I’ve expressed this, but those ridiculous SST freaks will be the downfall of those preposterous ACT freaks.
    • Mike Collins 24.1

      3 March 2009 at 8:00 pm

      Yeah you probably predicted Labour would win the election too.

      Back on topic. I can understand people having an issue with a piece of legislation proffered by a party that is not their own – even for reasons like inconsistency with the BORA (though such an assumption is rather generous considering many here supported the EFA) . What I can’t understand is the sanctimonious whinging that is going on from those on the left. Comments like “you just don’t get it do you?” Comments like these are particularly common from the increasingly shrill SP. It is just arrogance.

      The three strikes law may be inconsistent with the BORA. That’s all Finlayson has said. He didn’t say it is definitely inconsistent – and it doesn’t mean he won’t vote for it. He is fulfilling his duty as Attorney General which is separate from his political role (how novel).

      For my part I don’t think it is inconsistent with the BORA. I think it is a just law. As someone mentioned on another post (sorry can’t remember who), it can be thought of as a crime in its own right to commit a violent crime after being warned of the consequences by a sentencing judge. It is not like California, there are safeguards for that. People may be incarcerated for longer than they would have been – but they would have known the consequences for fucking up for the third time. Why people are prepared to apologise for this behaviour is beyond me. It is not like the scum that would be put behind bars under this law don’t have a choice. If they do choose to act in a way that would see them put behind bars for a long time, so be it.
      • Felix 24.1.1

        3 March 2009 at 10:04 pm

        Ooh look, another Actie – perhaps you can tell me: What do the “socially liberal” members of the party think about having a homophobic bigot like Garrett representing you in parliament?

        I asked your little friend Peter earlier but he declined to engage, perhaps you could let me know. It just doesn’t sit right somehow – you guys are all about the rights of the individual but Garrett and his hillbilly mates are, well, socially they’re to the redneck side of Winston Peters.

        How do you square it? Is it just power at all costs? I thought you guys were supposed to be principled (even though I think your principles are all wrong).

        And how do you feel about him being placed so high on the list? It’s not like he worked his way up there.

        Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
        • Mike Collins 24.1.1.1

          3 March 2009 at 11:30 pm

          “Look forward to hearing your thoughts.”

          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.
          • Felix 24.1.1.1.1

            3 March 2009 at 11:49 pm

            Mike,

            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.
          • Mike Collins 24.1.1.1.2

            4 March 2009 at 12:25 am

            Forgive me for being rude – I felt your line of questioning was rather rude in that you were fishing and trying to trip people up. Rudeness does often beget rudeness although that is no excuse. BTW I am not regurgitating party lines – for starters I haven’t really seen what anyone else in the party has said or written about this barring a few comments above. My comments are genuinely held. And please don’t assume that I am not interested in things such as the BORA.

            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.
25. Dr Steevens 25

    3 March 2009 at 5:30 pm

    Check out James’ view on this one over at Editing the Herald:

    http://editingtheherald.blogspot.com/2009/03/tuesday-march-3-2009-my-views-on-news.html
26. RedLogix 26

    3 March 2009 at 8:49 pm

    I so like to think that everyone in the Crown Law Office today was going round pointing at each other, loudly saying, “Hey YOU…. OIK!”.
27. Clint Heine 27

    3 March 2009 at 10:50 pm

    How kind of you to judge one MP in the ACT Party and apply it to the remaining MPs. If that is your precedent then I will judge you all on Mike Ward, Dover Samuels, Parekura Horomia… I mean lets be a little even handed here fellas!

    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.
    • Felix 27.1

      3 March 2009 at 11:26 pm

      Hey Clint if you’re going to get all precious about selective quoting then why did you leave this bit out:

      “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.
28. Clint Heine 28

    4 March 2009 at 8:18 am

    I was trying to be polite Felix, what party do you support if you don’t agree with the idea that we must all have the same opinion. That is a weird statement to make don’t you think?

    No party does that – unless you’re living in North Korea and then you have no choice. 🙂
    • Felix 28.1

      4 March 2009 at 10:10 am

      It would be a weird statement to make and I didn’t make it.

      If you don’t support bigots and homophobes having high placements on the party list, just say so.
29. Russell Brown 29

    4 March 2009 at 10:31 am

    Garrett-watchers may be interested in his rather dotty behaviour in this thread:

    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
    • Felix 29.1

      4 March 2009 at 11:42 am

      A discussion ensues

      Hilarity ensues!

      Jesus, “odd” doesn’t quite plumb the depths, does it?
      • Pascal's bookie 29.1.1

        4 March 2009 at 6:08 pm

        There’s some classic trolling argumentation there.

        Perhaps we should call him the Member for Right Bloggistan.
30. Russell Brown 30

    4 March 2009 at 10:51 am

    How kind of you to judge one MP in the ACT Party and apply it to the remaining MPs. If that is your precedent then I will judge you all on Mike Ward, Dover Samuels, Parekura Horomia I mean lets be a little even handed here fellas!

    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.
31. toad 31

    4 March 2009 at 12:57 pm

    Interestingly, Attorney General Chris Finlayson refutes Garrett’s claim that he just rubber stamps Crown Law advice. Seems there is some dissent in the Government ranks.

Links to post

1. Brad Heap » Blog » Can someone pinch me or is it really 1984?: posted on 3 March 2009 at 8:54 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS