• ACT Party tramples on freedom to get three strikes law

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

I have previously covered the Gang Insignia Bill here and here.

This is from the NZ Herald in regard to the Gang Insignia Bill:

Mr [Rodney] Hide said that while he objected to the ban “on principle”, the party had flip-flopped to try to get National’s support for its proposed “three strikes and you’re out” law. He denied it was part of a deal.
[...]
“We voted for it [the patch ban] because what it’s going to do is get three strikes through this Parliament.”
[...]
At its first reading in April, Mr Hide told Parliament he would happily vote against the bill because it was against the principles of freedom.

“Freedom is about the individual, and the measure of a free society is how we move to protect the minority from the majority. If the majority thinks that people wearing glasses should be locked up, that is not freedom or democracy,” he said.
[...]
[ACT MP] Mr Garrett is a hardliner who this week told the Herald that if three strikes was found to breach fundamental human rights, the solution was to change the Bill of Rights.

So, by Hide’s own definition the Gang Insignia Bill is against the principles of freedom and democracy, and Hide is now also opposed to the principles of freedom and democracy because he has voted for that law*.

Basically ACT is saying “We will sacrifice our principles and trample on freedom in order to keep our election promise of a three-strikes law. If that three-strikes law breaches the current definition of fundamental human rights we will simply change the definition of fundamental human rights”.

This illustrates the great danger that lies in the concept of “human rights” and in legislation that defines it: the definition of “human rights” can and does change without warning. As I said in my earlier post, there is no such thing as “human rights”, there are only personal and property rights. Only when personal and property rights are defined according to the non-aggression axiom are we safe from the depredations of politicians.

Laws such as the Bill of Rights are simply a means of restricting our rights to those which are defined in the legislation. If we were truly free there would be no need for such legislation, but instead we only have those rights which the state kindly allows us to have this week.

I really did expect better from the ACT Party, who should stop trampling on freedom and instead make a stand for it.

What do you think about ACT’s actions and the Gang Insignia Bill?

***********

*Compare this with what ACT MP Heather Roy said in September:

“Such moves are wrongly-focussed, token-ist and entirely predictable – hard-line policies to deal with gangs are reeled out by different Parties in the run up to every election,” Mrs Roy said.

“Clearly none of these ‘flash in a pan’ policies have worked – because they focus more on addressing the mayhem that individual gang members cause, rather than on initiatives that will hit gangs hardest and make it harder for them to operate.

“Legislation outlawing gangs and their insignia is just more law – we don’t need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have and give police the power to tackle lawlessness where and when it happens.
[...]
“This is political spin at its worst. Enforcing the laws and by-laws we already have, and following the money rather than the mayhem – a view reinforced by South Australia Premier Mike Rann in Auckland yesterday – is the real answer to dealing with gangs in New Zealand,” Mrs Roy said.

~~~~~~~~~~

• Gang Insignia Bill takes a step forward, freedom takes a step back

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

The NZ Herald in reporting that the Gang Insignia Bill has passed its second vote in parliament. This evil law is intended to prevent the display of gang patches/insignia in Wanganui (it says as much in the Bill) and opens the door for state suppression of other groups that are found to be inconvenient.

Furthermore, this law is unnecessary because another law covers this situation: there’s more about that and the wider issues in my earlier post. The penalty for breaking that other law is $4,000 or 6 months prison, yet the select committee wants to make the penalty under the proposed new law $2,000. So they’re adding to our massive burden of legislation and bringing in a smaller penalty at the same time. How daft is that?

The select committee also says

We recommend an amendment to insert new clause 8, which would allow the police to stop a vehicle, without a warrant, if they had reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed under this legislation. Police would not then have to use other legislation to stop a car with an occupant displaying gang insignia, and we consider this amendment necessary for the efficient enforcement of the provisions of this bill.

Simply displaying a gang patch does not violate the non-aggression axiom and therefore should not be illegal. When the state prohibits the display of certain insignia and gives related stop-without-warrant powers to police that state is a police state and freedom is dying.

What do you think about this law and the points that I have made?

Related topic: Police checkpoints

~~~~~~~~~~

• Anti-gang laws are contrary to natural justice and a violation of civil liberties

Wanganui District Council is trying to push through a law forbidding the wearing of gang patches and tattoos, and this is now a step closer to coming into force. Gang members are usually sociopathic thugs (like many politicians*), but that does not alter the transcendent issues here. What are the transcendent issues?

1) simply wearing gang insignia is not a crime against property or person. The classical libertarian definition of a crime is thus: It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property. As you read on you will see that we already have laws covering the threatening part, which is what this law is attempting to address.

2) this simply won’t work: the best way to deal with gangs is to legalise drugs

3) the police agree with me, saying that it won’t work and it will put the police in danger

4) like the Electoral Finance Act, this is yet another law that breaches the Bill of rights. The Mayor of Wanganui said:

One obstacle to the bill is that it technically breaches the Bill of Rights but Mr Laws said Parliament should put this to one side for the “greater good” of Wanganui.

There is a repeated pattern of the laws of NZ being put aside when they are inconvenient. Here Helen Clark leads by example.

5) there is another repeated pattern in NZ law, which is adding additional regulations to cover something that is already illegal. Liquor bans are a good example of this: we already have laws covering drunk-and-disorderly offences, but liquor bans are added to that, killing the civil liberties of the law abiding citizens who want to have a glass of wine at the beach and watch the sun go down.

There are already plenty of laws covering intimidation by gang members, and here is just one example:

Section 9 of the Summary Offences Act says:

Common assault
Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $4,000 who assaults any other person.

The definition of assault is:

Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning [emphasis added]

So, we have a law with a very broad definition of assault that includes threatening behaviour, but instead of using that they want to add another illegal law that breaches the Bill of Rights.

6) the law will cover tattoos. So will the gang members start wearing balaclavas to cover their facial tattoos? Will balaclavas then be made illegal in Wanganui?

7) the law will allow the seizure of tattoos that are gang insignia. Yes, the State can now strap you down and take away your tattoos. This is like a nightmarish science fiction movie come true.

8.) this opens the way for the State to outlaw other groups and insignia that it finds inconvenient. Many Christians are opposed to the anti-smacking law, and if they get too obstreperous will the wearing of crosses be made illegal?

This law is an example of the despotic Police State gone mad and should be opposed by all those who value personal freedoms and common sense.

**********

* here’s ten candidates for the diagnosis of “Highly Paid Sociopathic Thug”:

• Helen Clark, a.k.a the White Witch
• Winston Peters
• Sue Bradford
• Michael Cullen
• George W. Bush
• Barack Obama
• Vladimir Putin
• Joseph Stalin
• Mao Zedong
• Pol Pot

Helen will be pleased to know that she has the international status that she so desperately wants.