NZ First youth wing

Following on from Curwen Rolinson and NZ First which shows that Rolison has for some time claimed to be part of a NZ First youth wing and has been described in media as president of it for at least two years – Winston Peters has stated there is no youth wing and therefeore there has ever bee a leader or predident of a youth wing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters
New Zealand First Leader
Member of Parliament for Northland
7 JULY 2015

Statement on Curwen Rolinson

A remit proposing to formalise a youth wing is coming before the New Zealand First Convention in August.

Mr Curwen Rolinson was told countless times never to call himself the president or leader of a youth wing. New Zealand First does not have a youth wing in its Constitution, and therefore does not have a former or present president of such an organisation.

Wikipedia currently shows:

NZFirstWikipedia

That shows the Youth Wing is a thing but unofficial, but Wikipedia won’t be party controlled so that listing may be also unofficial.

Just after NZ First made it back into Parliament in December 2011 Stuff reported in Winston gives up the good life to ‘fix NZ':

NZ First ended the 2008 campaign a broken party when it failed to return to Parliament after Mr Peters was dogged with controversy over donations.

The experience led to some members leaving NZ First disillusioned and privately expressing their disappointment that Mr Peters could have avoided the party’s time in the political wilderness.

Former MP Ron Mark said Mr Peters knew the NZ First brand was solid but he needed to repair and rebuild it.

Mark got back into Parliament last year and was recently elected party deputy by the Caucus.

After years of being urged to start a NZ First youth wing, Mr Peters finally took that advice on board. “There has always been a love for Winston at the universities.”

In 2013 Rolinson and ‘NZ First Youth wing’ were in the news (Dominion): NZ First social media shut

NZ First has shut down some of its social media pages following a complaint about the leader of the party’s youth wing.

NZ First Youth leader Curwen Rolinson posted on Facebook that the party’s board of directors had tabled and accepted a complaint against his ongoing membership.

The board tabled the complaint on Monday night. It will be heard after the party’s convention this weekend.

Rolinson has been a member of NZ First since 2009, and was elected to the board in 2012 for a two-year term.

His post also said he had shut down the NZ First and NZ First Youth Facebook pages on instruction from party leader, Winston Peters.

“Accordingly, Winston has ordered ALL NZF social media pages to be shut down till this complaint has been heard next Monday.”

Peters declined to comment on the complaint, and there was no indication of when the party’s social media pages would be back online.

So Peters seems to have chosen not to comment on references to a youth wing then.

David Farrar Kiwiblogged on this with more details: NZ First youth wing head under investigation

Peters has promoted social media connecting with youth in a slightly different way:

Facebook election to find Winston Peter’s youth MP

New Zealand First leader Rt Hon Winston Peters will use a Facebook “election” to help uncover a deserving youngster to be his representative in New Zealand’s Youth Parliament.

Youth Parliament sees all MPs select a 16-18 year old to represent them in “Parliament” on July 16-17.

Peters was prominently involved in this:

That’s unrelated to a youth wing of NZ First, but I wonder if young party members like Rolinson were involved in making that a social media event.

In June 2013:

Back Benches – Youth Wing Special 2013

Our Panel: Young Labour President Jessie Lipscombe, New Zealand First Youth Representative Curwen Rolinson, Young Nats President Sean Topham, Young Greens Co-Convenor Lucy Gordon, and ACT on Campus President Taylor Warwood.

Rolinson is promoted there as Youth Representative and not as leader or president but it would be odd if this didn’t have Peters and party approval.

Curwen Rolinson

There are many other media references on this, as far back as July 2011 in Leak for Winston Peters:

About 300 of his faithful followers attended the annual conference and a greater number were expected today to hear the leader’s speech.

Most delegates were aged over 60 but the party known for attracting the older voter could also be fielding one of this year’s youngest candidates if 21-year-old Curwen Rolinson, leader of the party’s youth section, gets the nod.

In 2012 Frank Macskasy profiled Rolinson’s NZ First History in Interview: A Young NZer’s Thirst to make a Difference:

This online interview is with Curwen Rolinson, a member of NZ First’s Board of Directors; Leader, NZF Youth;  and “one-man nationalist revolution”.

Q: You’re a Director on NZ First’s Board of Directors. How long have you been a member of NZ First…

I joined up a little after the 2008 election.

I decided to go along to a local NZF meeting to see what the party was really like on the ground.

Afterward, Winston and I had a chat about tertiary policy and getting a youth wing going at university.

Also in 2012 in Otago’s student newspaper Critic

Critic loves to inform, so we talked to the Leader, and Troll-in-Chief, of Young NZ First, Curwen Rolinson, as well as “de facto Leader of Young NZ First Dunedin” Beau Murrah, about the policies behind the pinstriped suit and the smile.

It appears as if NZ First had an operational youth wing that wasn’t part of the party constitution.

Why Peters would worry about making the distinction now is curious – he might feel it’s embarrassing for the party that Rolinson has been charged with drug offences but Rolinson was an elected NZ First board member and obviously had close involvement with the party.

Open Forum – Wednesday

8 July 2015

This post is open to anyone to comment on any topic that isn’t spam, illegal or offensive. All Your NZ posts are open but this one is to encourage you to raise topics that interest you. 

Comments worth more exposure may be repeated as posts.

Your NZ is a mostly political and social issues blog but not limited to that, and views from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome. Some basic ground rules:

  • If possible support arguments, news, points or opinions with links to sources and facts.
  • Please don’t post anything illegal, potentially defamatory or abusive.
  • Debate hard if you like but respect people’s right to have varying views and to not be personally be attacked.
  • Don’t say to a stranger online anything you wouldn’t say to their face.

Moderation will be minimal if these guidelines are followed. Should they ever be necessary any moderator edits, deletes or bans will be clearly and openly advised.

Curwen Rolinson and NZ First

Curwen Rolinson has been associated with NZ First – as Board member for six years so presumably longer than that. He has been reported as leading NZ First Youth.

It’s been reported today that Former NZ First youth leader on cannabis charge

The former president of New Zealand First’s youth wing has been charged with possession of cannabis for supply.

Curwen Rolinson’s always been a troublemaker for New Zealand First and now it seems he’s a law-breaker as well.

Police arrested the aspiring politician on April 15, and he since appeared in court charged with possession of cannabis for supply.

Former NZ First Youth president? A press release followed soon after this news under Winston Peters’ name:

Rt Hon Winston Peters
New Zealand First Leader
Member of Parliament for Northland
7 JULY 2015

Statement on Curwen Rolinson

A remit proposing to formalise a youth wing is coming before the New Zealand First Convention in August.

Mr Curwen Rolinson was told countless times never to call himself the president or leader of a youth wing. New Zealand First does not have a youth wing in its Constitution, and therefore does not have a former or present president of such an organisation.

So NZ First are disowning Rolinson? He has certainly been connected with NZ First, but  in what capacity?

Searching the NZ First website on either his first or last name gets no hits.

He posts often at The Daily Blog and this one yesterday (6 July 2015) identifies him as a past Board member:

This piece has been a joint effort between long-serving former New Zealand First Board of Directors member Curwen Ares Rolinson, and a mysterious Southern gentleman known only as “Eduardo”.

There he is “former New Zealand First Board of Directors member” but in an earlier post on June 18:

Curwen Ares Rolinson was once, thanks to the Prime Minister, memorably investigated by the counter-terrorism branch of the NZ Police’s Special Investigations Group as a potential “Threat to National[‘s] Security”. He also blogs regularly at a variety of outlets; and heads up NZ First Youth.

This had changed to ‘former’ by June 27:

This piece has been a joint effort between long-serving former New Zealand First Board of Directors member Curwen Ares Rolinson, and a mysterious Southern gentleman known only as “Eduardo”.

On his Facebook ‘About':

Former Board of Directors; at New Zealand First

Here is his resignation from the NZ First Board on June 14:

The very first thing anybody learns about me – apart from, possibly, the fact I’m an Aries … is that my life is completely dedicated to New Zealand First.

Earlier this week, I tendered my resignation from NZF’s Board of Directors, in protest against what I considered to be unconscionable and dishonourable conduct from same.

Needless to say, this saddens me greatly. My service unto The Party, as delivered from that highest echelon, has been one of the highlights of my young life. The resounding recognition received for same from the thousands of Party members whom I’ve met at Conventions and in my travels across the land has been truly humbling. As has their supreme confidence in me by continually re-electing me to the Board for six years running. Who’d have thought a political party best known for its advocacy for the aged would EVER have entrusted a young lad of 20 with elevation to its highest body.

I’m truly pleased with what I’ve been able to accomplish as a Board member. NZ First developed a Youth Wing, a Social Media Presence, and numerous other 21st century innovations in no small part thanks to my efforts (although it is also VITALLY important to recognize that I didn’t do any of this alone, and that other people – in the case of NZ First Youth, DOZENS of other people – helped to make it all possible).

But regardless of whereabouts I wind up in the organization, my core belief – that New Zealand First represents the best, brightest, and blackest hope for our Nation’s future salvation – remains absolutely unchallenged.

There has therefore never even been the vaguest hint of a question about whether or not our fates remain intertwined.

To quote from my letter of resignation:

“Having said all that: I wish to make one thing perfectly and absolutely clear.

I am not going anywhere.

I still resolutely believe in this Party – its ordinary members, if not always its leadership; its Leader, if not always his martinets; and its principles if not always their practical applications.

My heart is still Black; and the linings remain – as ever – Silver.

I will therefore be continuing in my membership of New Zealand First, my activities in running the Youth Wing, and my public representations on our behalf through media such as The Daily Blog. […]

I hope by offering my Resignation […] that this allows us all to move forward in relative dignity; and get on with the serious business of protecting and saving our New Zealand, rather than wasting your breath and my sanity on continued factional infighting.

Our mission, here in politics, is bigger than each of us and any of us.

I look forward to continuing to play my part within it.

Yours faithfully,

Curwen Ares Rolinson. ”

The Age of Ares is over.

“Acta est fabula, plaudite!”

Curwen Ares Rolinson's photo.
Curwen Ares Rolinson's photo.

Oddly from the previous day:

On Sunday, at our Party Convention, I was once again re-elected to NZ First’s Board of Directors.

I believe my campaign promises included “levity” and “keeping the bastards honest”.

I thank the Party for its ongoing faith in me and what I do :D

They’ve voted for me en masse in each of 2010, 2012 and now 2014, so I must be doing something right :P

Confusing.

Rolinson was referring to NZ First Youth still on July 4 (last Saturday):

New Zealand First Youth meetup last night. We look like a goddamn boyband.

 — with Simon Oh Ionmhainèain and 3 others.

Curwen Ares Rolinson's photo.

The NZ First – Pakuranga Facebook timeline shows him as “Curwen Rolinson from the NZ First Youth Wing“:

NZFirstPakurangaFacebookIn March 2013: NZ First Youth denies pledge at odds with party

The president of NZ First’s youth wing has signed a pledge in favour of same-sex marriage.

It is a move that goes against the party’s opposition to the marriage equality bill, which is due for its second reading in Parliament on Thursday.

NZ First Youth president Curwen Rolinson was one of eight youth party representatives who signed a marriage equality certificate outside Parliament this morning.

However, Mr Rolinson says his youth wing’s stance is not at odds with the party and his signing of the pledge was on the condition of a referendum.

He has an unofficially connected blog called Putting NZ First:

PuttingNZFirstblog

NO COMMENTS:

So it’s curious that NZ First seem to be trying to distance themselves from Rolinson’s party Youth wing activities when he has been a Board member for six years.

And if he’s been reported as NZ First Youth president for years why deny it now? Of course Rolinson’s arrest could be seen as embarrassing for the party but a belated cutting adrift won’t change much.

Related post: NZ First youth wing

Social media censoring

This comment from Missy deserves wider debate, it raises important points about on the social media attempts to shut down any voices they don’t like, and force people out of jobs for making stupid mistakes.

I see Pebbles Hooper has ‘resigned’, and I actually wonder at what kind of country NZ is becoming when a person is bullied and harassed by media, blogs and the public leading to either resignation or sacking, all for having an opinion.

Don’t get me wrong her tweet was appalling, and she should never have said it, however, I do find that the reaction in this country when a controversial comment is made is over the top and hyperbolic.

The PC, mostly lefty, activists in this country talk a good talk on freedom of speech, but as soon as someone says something they don’t agree with, or is stupid, or is not considered PC that person is vilified, bullied and harassed in social media, and often by the mainstream media, and often their employers are also bullied into firing them.

They are censoring opinions and discussion via shaming and bullying and the media in this country are complicit, there have been too many examples of people losing jobs, or companies being bullied through boycotts and bans, all because someone says something or does something that does not meet the approval of the lefty activist. We are fast becoming a society where freedom of speech is being eroded by the unofficial censorship of the PC Brigade.

Some care has to be taken exercising free speech in social media – and the old media could also exercise some caution in picking up on social media mob attacks.

Sun rose this morning, Greens complain about emissions target this afternoon

It was not surprising to see the Greens quickly condemn the New emissions target as not enough.

Govt’s emissions reduction target 100% pure spin

The National Government’s paltry emissions reduction target announced today means that New Zealand is not pulling its weight internationally when it comes to climate change, the Green Party said.

The Government announced a 2030 emissions reduction target of 30 percent off 2005 levels. This translates to an 11 percent reduction on 1990 levels.

“By committing to such a small reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it means other countries will have to pick up our slack, or we’ll get runaway climate change,” said Green Party international climate negotiations spokesperson Dr Kennedy Graham.

“Our fair share is at least a 40 percent reduction on 1990 levels, and the Government’s target is not even close.

“If all countries followed New Zealand’s lead, catastrophic climate change would be the result.

“Using 2005 as a benchmark is pure spin; the target is a paltry 11 percent reduction on 1990 levels, which is the usual benchmark for emission reductions.

“New Zealand can do so much better.

“National is missing this opportunity to implement policies that are good for people and the climate.

“We have no choice but to transition to a low-carbon economy, but National will increase the cost of this transition by delaying.

“The Green Party has extended the invitation to start a genuine dialogue on climate policy with the Government, and what might be required in the next few years to bring New Zealand out of the ranks of laggards and into the ranks of leaders, on climate policy.

“New Zealanders, now and in the future, deserve a climate plan we can be proud of,” said Dr Graham.

I don’t think this never-enough approach is likely to influence much here.

There’s also been a outcry from the Twitterlefties.

The sun and the anger will rise again tomorrow.

New emissions target

The Ministry of the Environment has announced new emissions targets – 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, which is 11% below 1990 levels.

Our new climate change target

In December this year, countries will meet in Paris to establish a new international climate change agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

An important part of the agreement will be the contributions each country makes to address climate change. Ahead of the negotiations in Paris, all countries have been asked to put forward a target to reduce emissions in the period after 2020. These are known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs.

In July 2015, the New Zealand Government announced that our post-2020 climate change target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

View details on Hon Tim Groser’s media statement [beehive website]

The target has been tabled internationally with the United Nations in advance of the Paris meeting in December. New Zealand’s target will remain provisional until the new international agreement is ratified.

View a copy of New Zealand’s INDC (PDF, 328 Kb)

New Zealand’s current target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. The new post-2020 target is equivalent to 11 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030. New Zealand will meet these responsibility targets through a mix of domestic emission reductions, the removal of carbon dioxide by forests and participation in international carbon markets.

Public consultation

Public consultation on New Zealand’s target occurred during the period 7 May–3 June 2015. Fifteen public meetings and hui were held across New Zealand and over 17,000 written submissions were received from more than 15,600 submitters.

View a summary of public submissions on the target. (PDF, 573 Kb)

Copies of individual submissions will be available on this website soon, after personal information is removed consistent with the Privacy Act 1993.

Material released as part of the consultation process includes:

If you thought things were too PC now…

…see what the BBC was like in the 1940s, according to ‘1948 Guidelines for Light Entertainment  Producers of matters of taste’, as posted on Slate.

Filmmaker Samantha Horley recently posted an image of this set of “Guidelines,” which she found among her father’s effects, on her Facebook page. Horley told me that her aunt worked at the BBC as a secretary in the 1960s and 1970s; she thinks the page originally came from her aunt’s papers.

The BBC’s press office told me, over email, that the page looks like it came from The BBC Variety Programmes Policy Guide For Writers and Producers, published in 1948.

BBCGuidelines

The BBC reprinted the entire document as a book in the late 1990s; it’s now out of print, but here is a version in PDF. The longer document includes provisions that are less overtly amusing than this section but are interesting nonetheless, offering guidelines on libel and slander, religious and political references, and jokes about physical and mental disability.

From: The BBC’s Hilarious 1948 Style Guidelines “On Matters of Taste”

GCSB and SIS review – public views sought

Public submissions are now being sought as part of the independent review of New Zealand’s intelligence and security legislation.

Michael Cullen and Patsy Reddy, who are carrying out the review, have put out a press release advising of the submission  process, asking the public for their views on “what the GCSB and NZSIS should be doing to protect New Zealand”.

I presume that allows for public views on what the GCSB and SIS shouldn’t be doing.

Intelligence and security reviewers seek public’s views

The independent reviewers examining New Zealands intelligence and security legislation are calling for public submissions.Intelligence and security reviewers seek public’s views

“We are seeking public submissions to help us determine what issues to focus on during the review,” says Sir Michael. “We want to hear your views on what the GCSB and NZSIS should be doing to protect New Zealand and how they should do it.”

“We also want to hear what would give you confidence that the agencies are acting in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders while having due regard to their rights and freedoms,” says Dame Patsy.

The review will consider the legislation relating to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), and the oversight of the agencies. It will also assess whether the new legislative provisions introduced late last year by the Countering Foreign Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill should be extended beyond their current expiry date of 1 April 2017.

Submissions will be open until 5pm on Friday 14 August 2015. You can make a submission online by visiting https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/independent/iris, or you can make a submission by email or post using the call for submissions document available on the website. The website also includes some resources to assist you in making a submission.

More details were given via a Q & A.

Questions about the review

Why is this review being carried out?

Legislation passed in 2013 made several changes to clarify the law governing the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and improve oversight of New Zealand’s intelligence and security agencies – the GCSB and New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS).

One of these changes was to introduce regular independent reviews of the intelligence and security agencies and their governing legislation.

Regular reviews will help to ensure the law keeps up with changing risks to national security, while protecting individual rights and maintaining public confidence in the agencies.

Who is conducting the review?

Hon Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy are the independent reviewers, appointed by the Acting Attorney-General Hon Amy Adams in consultation with the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

Biographies of the independent reviewers are available at https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/independent/iris.

What will the review cover?

The review will determine:

1. Whether the legislative frameworks of the intelligence and security agencies (GCSB and NZSIS) are well placed to protect New Zealand’s current and future national security, while protecting individual rights;

2. Whether the current oversight arrangements provide sufficient safeguards at an operational, judicial and political level to ensure the GCSB and NZSIS act lawfully and maintain public confidence.

The full terms of reference for the 2015 review can be viewed at: http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/i/intelligence-and-security-agencies-review.

How long will the review take?

The review will be completed by the end of February 2016.

When can I read the independent reviewers’ report?

The independent reviewers must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with a report containing the results of their review by the end of February 2016.

After the Committee has considered the report, the Committee must present the report to the House of Representatives subject to any restrictions on the disclosure of information under section 18(3) of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996.

Where can I find more information about the review?

The Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 establishes the statutory framework for the review. You can read the Act at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/.

The announcement from Hon Amy Adams appointing the independent reviewers, including biographies of the independent reviewers and the full terms of reference for the 2015 review, can be viewed at: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/intelligence-and-security-review-commence-june.

The notice in the New Zealand Gazette can be read at: https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2015-go3140.

Any future announcements about the review will be posted on http://www.justice.govt.nz/.

What other reviews of the intelligence agencies have there been?

There have been a number of reviews in recent years relating to specific aspects of the intelligence and security agencies, for example the Murdoch review in 2009 and the Kitteridge review in 2012. The agencies in the core New Zealand Intelligence Community were also subject to a Performance Improvement Framework Review in late 2013. However, this will be the first review to look at the broader legislative framework and oversight of the agencies.

How does the review relate to the Law Commission’s work on classified information in court proceedings?

The Law Commission’s work has a specific focus on the rules and processes governing use and protection of security sensitive information in court proceedings. However, it is anticipated that the Law Commission’s work will complement the wider review.

While both pieces of work will proceed independently, there will be opportunities for the Commission and independent reviewers to share research and thinking if common issues arise.

Questions about the submissions process

When can I make a submission?

Submissions are open until 5.00pm on Friday 14 August 2015.

How can I make a submission?

You can make a submission online or download the consultation document to make a written submission at https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/independent/iris. Written submissions can be emailed to IRISsupport@justice.govt.nz or posted to IRIS Support Team, Ministry of Justice, Level 3 – Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street, Wellington, DX SX10088.

I don’t know the answer to some of the consultation questions. Do I have to answer them all?

No, you do not need to answer all of the questions. None of them are mandatory.

Why is my submission being sent to the Ministry of Justice?

As stated in section 26 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for providing administrative, secretarial, and other support to the independent reviewers. This includes assisting with public consultation.

What happens with my submission?

Your submission will help the independent reviewers to decide what issues the review should focus on within the broad terms of reference. Your submission is sought for the purposes of this independent review only. It will not be shared with government agencies other than the Ministry of Justice (which is providing administrative support for the review) or released publicly.

After the independent reviewers have considered your submission, the independent reviewers or a member of the Ministry of Justice support team may wish to contact you to discuss your submission. At the beginning of the submission form you will be asked to indicate whether you are willing to be contacted for this purpose.

No evidence that Judith Collins undermined SFO boss

Transcripts of interviews released to NZ Herald under the Official Information Act don’t reveal any evidence that then Justice Minister Judith Collins tried to undermine the head of the Serious Fraud Office, Adam Feeley.

It appears the ‘over-blown’ claims by Cameron Slater dumped his friend Collins into a political shit storm.

In Champagne stunt an utter disaster: Collins the Herald reports:

An inquiry by High Court judge Lester Chisholm, which published its report in November, found no evidence that Ms Collins had attempted to undermine Mr Feeley when she was Police Minister in 2011.

Transcripts of interviews with 13 witnesses, including Ms Collins, Mr Feeley, bloggers Cameron Slater and Cathy Odgers and lobbyist Carrick Graham have been released to the Herald under the Official Information Act.

The inquiry concluded that Slater had exaggerated or made up a claim that Ms Collins had been “gunning” for Mr Feeley.

Chisholm inquiry – key players

•Judith Collins (former Police, Justice Minister): Resigned as a minister after an email appeared to show she was “gunning” for SFO boss Adam Feeley. Later cleared of inappropriate conduct but not returned to Cabinet.

•Adam Feeley (former SFO CEO): Investigated by State Services Commission after celebrating charges against Rod Petricevic by drinking champagne taken from Bridgecorp’s offices.

•Cameron Slater (Whale Oil blogger): A friend of Collins, he claimed she was “gunning” for Feeley while she was Police Minister, but later admitted to the inquiry that his comment may have been over-blown.

•Carrick Graham (lobbyist): Paid blogger Cathy Odgers (Cactus Kate) to counter negative media attention for Hanover boss Mark Hotchin, whom the SFO was investigating. Ms Odgers used Slater’s blog to get a wider audience for the campaign.

•Anita Killeen (former SFO staffer): Leaked damaging information about Feeley. Later pleaded guilty to forging an email which appeared to be sent by Feeley. She was discharged without conviction.

Feeley thought Collins overreacted to embarrassing news about a champagne celebration.

Former Justice Minister Judith Collins described a champagne stunt by fraud watchdog Adam Feeley as an “utter disaster” that threatened to overshadow the Government at a crucial time.

Mr Feeley believed Ms Collins had overreacted when the then Serious Fraud Office boss was found to have celebrated charges against Bridgecorp with champagne taken from its offices.

They seem to have since dealt with that.

Was it just bullshit bravado from Slater that dumped Collins into the shit-storm that resulted in her resignation from Cabinet?

What were he, Odgers and Graham playing at? And for whom?

Has Slater protected her by later denying his claims?

Kiwiblog commentariat on summary justice and “shoot on sight”

David Farrar tries to laugh about dwarf throwing in a Herald profile of NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell in Profile of two NZ First MPs.

But that’s minor compared to comments where  there seems more serious intent, with the applauding of chasing and beating up, and the promotion of a shoot on sight police force or army.

These aren’t Farrar’s views but they are enabled through his liberal freedom to speak policy.

The Herald article details what started the discussion:

First-term MP reveals fight with gang member after threats to his life

An MP received a suspended sentence following a fight with a gang member who attacked him after being refused entry to a bar.

First-term NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell, 43, has reluctantly spoken about the incident, which occurred 18 years ago.

“The reality is, everyone has a past and I have got one, too. I have been involved in hospitality for 25 years and so, because you run bars and you stand on the front door, you do have, and I certainly have had, over the years, a lot of situations where you get put into very perilous situations.”

Mr Mitchell was in charge of the city’s Straight Shooters Bar in 1997, when a gang member with facial tattoos was refused entry.

“It turned into a confrontation, a physical one, he was a lot bigger than me, he was a very intimidating individual. I got a black eye and swollen face out of it.”

“He picked me up above his head and tried to throw me across the front entranceway, but I held on to his belt and got myself to the ground.”

Mr Mitchell, who went on to get a black-belt in judo and has taught boxing and women’s self-defence classes, said the man then told him he was going to get a gun and would return to finish him off. He now realises he crossed a line in following the gang member, he said, but at the time was in fear for his life.

“I followed him. I told the staff that were there to call the police, which they did, the police arrived, and by the time they had arrived I’d run up and gave him a beating, basically, gave him a bit of a boxing lesson.

“Had I just repelled him at the front door and left it, then he would have been arrested and there would be no charges against me.”

It’s hard to imagine what it would be like being caught up in a violent situation like this, but Mitchell concedes in retrospect that he crossed a line.

Not so some of the Kiwiblog commentariat.

Chuck Bird:

I am impressed by Clayton Mitchell. It is an outrage he has a record albeit a suspended sentence for what he did to a gang member who attacked him when other people with better connection get discharged without conviction and permanent name suppression for much more serious offenses.

Julian spoke against the summary justice tide:

Clayton Mitchell sounds like the sort of thug who should be locked up. He chased a retreating person down the street and beat him up. Scumbag.

BananaLama wasn’t having that:

Threatening to come back with a gun and shoot you isn’t retreating the gang member is lucky he only got a smack in the head to be honest.

David Garrett (the ex-ACT three strikes MP one):

Julian: We frown on “trolling” over here almost as much as at your spiritual home…If you had read the full story you couldn’t possibly have written anything so silly…

That starts with a false assumption. Julian quoted from the Herald story but Garrett responded:

Julian: what you are missing inter alia is: 1) who began the fight; 2) that one protagandist was a gang member; 3) what threats were made (in the hearing of witnesses); and 4) the disparity of size between the two…The prick ran away only because Mitchell had martial arts training, and wasn’t the pushover he had assumed him to be…

More assumptions, plus trying to justify chasing someone and beating them up.

Srylands:

Really? I am just reading the story at face value. If correct the “thug” should have received a commendation.

Are you serious, or simply trolling for attention?

Is Syrlands serious or just jumping on the bashwagon?

The ticks were leaning well in favour of the right to chase and bash but Julian persisted in challenging:

I’m happy to be in the minority, but I don’t agree that this thug should be congratulated for dispensing his version of street justice.

I presume the sentencing judge was well aware of all of Mitchell’s whiny excuses, namely: ‘he started it’, ‘but but but he’s in a gaaaaanngg’, ‘he threatened [threatened being the operative word] to get a gun’, and ‘he’s bigger than me’ (seriously!).

Boris Piscina:

Good on him. Good to see an MP with balls and the willingness to use them. In all honesty I can only think of half a dozen National members who wouldn’t shy from the spineless “don’t take the law into your own hands” doctrine beloved of our pro-criminal Police force and it’s wishy washy PC liberal apologists in Government (and yes I do mean the current Government).

RRM widened the discussion to dealing with all gang members:

Patched gang members should be rounded up and exterminated by the army.
Just lifetime criminals who have declared war on civilised society.

Gangs are a major problem. So is RRM’s solution, which came in to Garrett support:

RRM: A man after my own heart! I could never say such a thing when I was an MP, but that is actually how I think…I prefer to describe them as outlaws in the true sense; people who don’t believe society’s rules apply to them…That is the reason I understood where JC was coming from when she recently disagreed with the Judge in the Nelson drugs trial case… You don’t obey Queensberry rules in a street fight…

If they introduced a “shoot on sight” policy for patched gang members they would disappear overnight…as would most of the problem: they are just gutless scum without the patch…

I joined in:

If chase and beat the crap out of and shoot on sight were allowed and encouraged as some here wish then with 3 strikes we’d probably end up with a rapidly expanding prison population and increasing collateral damage of innocent people.

The problem with sanctioned thuggery, summary justice and vigilantism is you end up with an uncivilised society that adversely affects everyone.

Escalated violence in society can’t be ring-fenced.

Garrett qualifies his advocating for ‘shoot on sight':

PG: I am not advocating – even half seriously – “shoot on sight” for the general public…that would lead to mayhem, and war on the streets…but I quite seriously regard gangs as behind the worse things in our society, starting with P manufacture…there are no “independent” P manufacturers, they are all controlled by gangs.

If, as RRM suggests, the army was tasked with eliminating them, how long to you think they would last? A week?

Of course it’s never going to happen, but one can fantasise…Do you disagree that the country would be a much better place without organized gangs?

Allowing the army to shoot on sight to eliminate anyone deemed a gang member from a distance is as stupid a thing I have seen you support.

I agree there are some lowlife criminal scum around, far too many of them. But lowering justice to their level (that is zero judicial process) is a terrible way to deal with it.

Of course the country would be a much better place without organized gangs – but you don’t realistically think they could be eliminated without collateral damage do you?

Despite the problems we have I like New Zealand because it’s like New Zealand, and not like Syria or Mogadishu.

I asked Garrett: DG – you’ve researched justice in different parts of the world – can you give some good examples of countries where an army has been used to successfully eliminate all gangs? Where it took longer than a week would suffice.

He hasn’t responded yet, but Dave Mann joined in:

I don’t think we need shoot on sight policy for gangs. I would propose that as they put themselves outside the law all gang members should be considered fair game and there should be no legal consequences for any action against them. Not everybody has a firearm, so we need to consider other solutions to the problem, such as running them off the road on their bikes or bulldozing their properties. Of course this doesn’t preclude shooting, but there are many ways to skin a cat.

It’s hard to know how serious those suggestions are. No one has ticked it up or down yet.

Then Alan Wilkinson introduced some common sense:

The best way to eliminate gangs is to cut off their money. The best way to cut off their money is to treat drug use as a medical problem (when it is even that) instead of a crime.

That wouldn’t eliminate gangs, the criminally inclined will always find ways of selfishly shitting on society, but it would substantially limit their income opportunities and their adverse influence on society. It would also be far more likely to retain a relatively decent society and maintain reasonable standards of justice.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,087 other followers