Enlightened Policing

Citizens in Uniform

There are some encouraging signs coming from the NZ Police.  Over the Christmas break, the NZ Police Commissioner, Mike Bush was quoted in the NZ Herald, saying:

Behind the scenes, we have transformed the way we work. We have put preventing crime and meeting the needs of victims at the forefront of everything police do, with outstanding results.

These include a 20.1 per cent reduction in recorded crime in the past five years, meaning tens of thousands of people were spared the trauma of becoming victims. That’s what New Zealand Police is all about.  And we have revolutionised the way our people work by issuing our frontline with smartphones and tablets loaded with customised apps to allow them to spend more time in their communities and less time at the office doing paperwork. On the streets is where they can make the most difference.

Granted this is a PR piece.  But it does underscore some important policing principles.  These include:

• The importance of crime prevention.
• Being victim focused.
• The importance of community and neighbourhood policing
• A constant presence on the streets.

We are sure that much more needs to be done.  One thing stands out: historically, the police force came into existence in the UK as an extension of the public’s fundamental role and duty in policing their own neighbourhoods.  The police received their powers from the public, not the state.  Wherever that fundamental reality is lost, the police become more and more ineffectual, and crime soars.
  The blunt reality is this: policing does not work without an on-going alliance between the police and the community.  The more police enlist the public into this civic duty, the more effective policing becomes–which is why the four points made by Commissioner Bush listed above are so critical. 

Peter Hitchens describes this reality (with respect to Britain):

The liberal state has redefined crime in such a way that many actions that used to be seen as common sense are now dangerous breaches of the law.  Teachers who smack or even restrain children, householders who catch vandals smashing their fences and frogmarch them to their parents for punishment, citizens who put up barbed wire to defend their homes against thieves, shopkeepers who try to fight off violent robbers with forces, all find that the police are likely to view them as offenders.  The new law believes that the family is itself a seething nest of abuse from which battered wives and molested children may at any time need to be rescued. . . .

This enthusiasm for pursuing allegations against authority figures widens the gulf between the police and citizens who once saw themselves as being on the side of the law.  Actions that would at one time have been seen as helpful to the police are now prosecuted and punished.  Faced with such actions–defence of homes, citizens’ arrests of street robbers and so forth–police chiefs complain about citizens “taking the law into their own hands”.  This is an interesting use of language.  The law, as it has existed for centuries, is in the hands of the English people and is shared by them with a police force who are supposed to be citizens in uniform. [ Peter Hitchens, The Abolition of Liberty: the Decline of Order and Justice in England (London: Atlantic Books, 2003),   p. 44f.]

We get the impression that Hitchens’s description, once very accurate with respect to New Zealand as well, is now less the case here.   The more police get involved with communities and the more they enlist community help in policing, the more effective their policing will become, and the less a “don’t get involved, leave it to us” attitude will prevail. 

There is a long way to go–and given the inevitable return of more liberal, left-wing governments to power, there is nothing to say that progress will continue to be made.  We may well get a reversal to the stupid, “leave it to the experts” mentality–which is implicitly statist. 

If as a police officer, or police force, one presumes that the vast majority of citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible when it comes to joining the fight against crime, the inevitable implication is that there is no way crime can be successfully contained.  The suppressed premise of such a benighted and ignorant view is that the majority of citizens are themselves quasi-criminal types.  Ironically, when a police force comes to believe that, crime will explode–not because the majority of the population is indeed criminal, but because “police only” policing rapidly descends into ineffectual incompetence.

Letter from NZ (About Stupid Offensive Bureaucratic Policing)

Police erode public faith with zero tolerance zeal 

Stuff
Karl Du Fresne
9th Janury, 2015 

Human nature is a perverse thing. It consistently thwarts all attempts to coerce us into behaving the way bureaucrats, politicians and assorted control freaks think we should.

Take the road toll. Since early December New Zealanders have been subjected to a ceaseless barrage of police propaganda about the futility of trying to defy speed and alcohol limits.  Stern-looking police officers have been in our faces almost daily, warning that zero tolerance would be shown to lawbreakers. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has found their lecturing increasingly tiresome and patronising.

Of course the police can claim the best possible justification for all this finger-wagging: it’s about saving lives. But what was the result? The road toll for the holiday period was more than double those of the previous two years. For the full year, the toll was up by 44 on the record low of 2013.  The figures suggest that people crash for all manner of reasons, and that the emphasis on speed and alcohol is therefore simplistic. 

[We are not sure that the focus upon speed and alcohol should be regarded as simplistic.  Ex-post facto examination of all fatal crashes are reported to demonstrate that they are they all-too-often causal factors.  But it is how the police focus upon these that needs to be rethought.  The artificial reductions in alcohol intake, the bureaucratic methods of testing and deployment, and the facile statistical targeting are all counter-productive, as Du Fresne points out.   Ed.]

The police focus on speed and booze because these are easy targets, and when the road toll comes down they can take the credit. In the ideal world envisaged by ever-hopeful bureaucrats, wayward citizens can be managed much as sheep are controlled by heading dogs. But people will never be harangued into driving safely; human nature is just too contrary.

Besides, police crackdowns are only one factor in achieving a lower road toll.  Improved road design, safer cars, better-equipped emergency services and more immediate medical attention all contribute too. It would be interesting to know, for example, how many lives have been saved because of the use of helicopters to get victims promptly to hospital.

Given that their heavy-handed propaganda campaign appears to have had minimal effect, I wonder if the police will now be humble enough to sit down and review their tactics.

[And whether perverse, bureaucratic-minded, statist politicians will rethink their zealous folly. Ed.]

They might also ponder the potential damage done to their public image by the zeal with which they immediately began enforcing the new alcohol limits.  It must have been like shooting fish in a barrel as they set up checkpoints to catch otherwise law-abiding citizens who had inadvertently consumed one glass of sauvignon blanc too many.

It was a formidable display of police power, but how many lives did it save? And how many of the apprehended drivers were left feeling humiliated and angry at being made to feel like criminals for unwittingly doing something that was legal only days before, and that probably posed no danger to anyone?

Police will say, of course, that they were merely enforcing the law. But there is a point at which the benefits of aggressive law enforcement have to be weighed against potential negative consequences, such as public resentment. I’m not sure our police bosses have done this equation.

Or our politicians.  Ed.

Sir Robert Peel, the 19th century British politician who established the police force on which ours is modelled, established the principle that police must operate with the consent of the people they serve. Put another way, they can’t risk burning off public goodwill. Judging by public reaction to the zero tolerance campaign, as expressed in forums such as letters to the editor, talkback shows and online news sites, that’s exactly what is now happening.

This is the consequence some police officers feared when the old enforcement branch of the Ministry of Transport merged with the police in 1992. They realised the negative public sentiment attached to traffic cops was likely to rub off on police. And so it has turned out.

We tend to associate the phrase “police state” with brutal fascist regimes, but the term can apply to any country where the law is enforced so zealously that it impinges on the lives of responsible citizens. It’s not overstating things to suggest that our own police are in danger of slipping into that danger zone.

In November, TV3 reported that police had thrown an impregnable cordon around Hamilton’s CBD on a Saturday night. No vehicle could get out (or in, presumably) without going through a checkpoint. To me, that sounds almost like a police state.

Yes, I know the object of the exercise was to catch lawbreakers, but I bet I wasn’t alone in thinking we had crossed a new threshold. And I bet I wasn’t alone in feeling uncomfortable at the obvious satisfaction of the police inspector in charge, who seemed to relish exerting such control over the lives of her fellow citizens.

The Glories of Post-Christian Britain

Multi-culturalism, Orwellianism, Censorship and Neo-Criminalism

James Bloodworth

The Independent

Thursday 1 January 2015

At some point saying “offensive” things online stopped being a social faux pas and became a potentially criminal act.

Dare to be rude about the wrong person or group and, in a bad parody of Erich Honecker’s East Germany, you could hear the knock on the door in the middle of the night and be dragged off to some dreary police cell for questioning.

I exaggerate of course, but not much: around 20,000 people in Britain have been investigated in the past three years for comments made online, with around 20 people a day being looked into by the forces of the law, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The overused Orwellian cliché has finally become the reality: Big Brother in the form of an overzealous and under regulated police force really is watching you. As Police Scotland terrifyingly informed us this week, “Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media and any offensive comments will be investigated.”

And so, in a further erosion of free expression, the police in Scotland have this week decided to investigate former Apprentice star and professional controversialist Katie Hopkins for off-colour comments made online about the Scottish nurse who contracted Ebola.

Doing what she is paid handsomely to do (and presumably what got her 291,000 Twitter followers), Hopkins came up with the most grotesque thing she could say about the issue and condensed it into 140 characters, tweeting that the nurse in question was a “sweaty Glaswegian” and referring to Scots as “Jocks”.
In response, the perennially thin-skinned of Twitter cobbled together a 12,000-strong petition demanding that Hopkins be charged over the tweets and handed it to a police force desperately looking to justify its place in the world at a time of falling crime.

Predictably the police pounced on it. As Detective Inspector Glyn Roberts of Police Scotland put it: “Inquiries are ongoing into the nature of these tweets and to establish any potential criminality.”

Since the birth of social media a fruitful relationship has developed between those who seek to offend and those who spend every waking hour looking desperately for something to be offended by. Indeed, notoriety of Katie Hopkins is largely due to the legions of people who froth with outrage at (and publicise) her every utterance.

But now things are getting really serious, for at some point we accepted the dreadful premise that unpleasant – and yes “offensive” – opinions ought to be silenced by force. Idiotic views are now considered matters for law enforcement and it is utterly terrifying.

This isn’t only about professional controversialists like Hopkins: what of the woman found guilty of a public order offence for saying that David Cameron had “blood on his hands”? Or Azhar Ahmed, who was prosecuted for an online post mocking the deaths of six British soldiers killed in Afghanistan?

All vile and grossly insensitive certainly; but on balance I think I’m more afraid of the Twitter Stasi and their increasingly zealous police enforcers.

Rather than obsessing over their tweets, we ought to leave the Katie Hopkins’s of the world to the obscurity they so richly deserve. And more importantly, we should keep the police out of it.

The Madness of the UK Elites

Culturally Sensitive Policing

In the United Kingdom this past year systemic abuse and extreme criminal acts over a long period of time have come to light, yet the police and local council officials have turned a blind eye and ignored them.  Some have warned darkly that what has come to light is the tip of a vast iceberg.  If you have not caught up with the explosive revelations, take a look at reports about Rotherham. 

The question is, how could this come to pass?  While the causes are always multi-form it would appear that a large contributing factor is the sea-change that took place in the UK police force fifteen or so years ago.  As a result of the Macpherson Report into the apparently racially motivated slaying of  Stephen Lawrence the police were officially required to become racist in their approach to community policing and crime.  We mean, of course, they were required to apply a filter of “multi-cultural sensitivities” to crime.  Race was mandated as a filter in apprehending and detecting crime.

First of all, let’s define racism.  The Macpherson Report helpfully provided its definition:

A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person. [Maitland Report, p.376]

No doubt, dear reader, you have just fallen off your chair. Racist incidents take place whenever anyone perceives they have.  This bizarre claim was to become part of police and government procedures.  But worse, the police had to take race (that is, the cultures of different races) into account when policing.

A new atmosphere of mutual confidence and trust must be created. The onus to begin the process which will create that new atmosphere lies firmly and clearly with the police. The Police Services must examine every aspect of their policies and practices to assess whether the outcome of their actions creates or sustains patterns of discrimination. The provision of policing services to a diverse public must be appropriate and professional in every case. Every individual must be treated with respect. “Colour-blind” policing must be outlawed. The police must deliver a service which recognises the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society. [Maitland, s.45.24]

Colour blind policing is outlawed.  Instead the police had to recognise “the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society”.  “Recognising” has to do with acknowledging in a positive light.

From that time onwards, the police were not allowed to be “colour-blind”, but they had to be culturally sensitive.  Putting it baldly, since it was a long established cultural practice for Pakistani youth to prey upon young girls and boys, groom them for sex, and systematically rape them, the police clapped the proverbial telescope to the Nelsonian blind eye and saw no evil.  Its just what they do, and police needed to recognise “the different experiences, perceptions and needs of a diverse society.”  Behold the mandated and required racism of the modern UK police force.

Consequently, since many of the horrendous crimes being perpetrated in our day can be linked to historical cultural practices, the Police are, therefore, expected to see no evil, hear no evil.  Crimes such as female genital mutilation, honour killings, paedophilia, compulsorily arranged marriages are all wonderful manifestations (don’t you know) of a diverse rich multi-cultural society which the Police must welcome, endorse, and celebrate–along with all the vast machinery of state and its army of bureaucratic functionaries–or, if not, risk being charged with racism.  At the least, this is not the most enlightened career move one could make. 

Peter Hitchens comments:

The Macpherson Report is one of the most extraordinary documents ever to be published by any British government.  Its language, tone and style are quite unlike anything else ever printed by the austere presses of the state.  Its accusation of “institutional racism” against the police is by definition impossible to prove and therefore impossible to refute.  Yet it has highly disreputable origins.  The inventor of this idea and expression was the American black radical Stokely Carmichael, an anti-Semite who was at one time banned from this country and who proclaimed that Hitler was a genius. . . . Despite this tainted source, it has been difficult for anyone to combat the new ideology presumably for fear of being damned as institutionally racist themselves. [Peter Hitchens, The Abolition of Liberty: the Decline of Order and Justice in England (London: Atlantic Books, 2003),   p. 209f.]

When secularism overthrew the Christian faith, it did not introduce a wonderfully tolerant society.  Rather, it made room for the re-introduction of idols (secular idols, to be sure, but idols nonetheless).  As will always the case, these particular idols are ruthless, bloody, primitive and benighted as were Bel, Nebo, and Molech.  

Nanny Bloomberg Unmasked

The Witch Who Eats Children

Nanny Bloomberg, when he was mayor of  New York, was always hectoring folk to make them healthy, wealthy and wise.  Nanny passed lots of laws banning things like sugar–all in the effort to prevent people from living in ways that Nanny did not approve.  “It was for their own good,” he said, as he departed for fresh pastures and campaigns.

Most New Yorkers, who love the Nanny State, thought that Bloomie was an all-round good guy.  He cared, that’s why he passed all these laws telling us when to eat and drink and what profile our noses should assume as we breath the no-longer-free air.  He loves us. 

Except that now Nanny Bloomberg’s mask has been stripped off.  He is exposed as an evil witch who kills and eats children.  Eric Garner was choked to death by the New York police whilst being arrested.  For what was he arrested, you ask?  For breaking one of Nanny Bloomberg’s laws.  He was selling cigarettes on the street, free of Bloomberg’s onerous, prohibitive taxes.  He was a criminal, said the police.  He had a record.  He had been arrested previously 31 times.  For what?  Murder?  Rape? Theft?  No.  He had been arrested 31 times for selling “illegal” cigarettes.  For that he deserved to die. 

you will never see fascism like a liberal trying to collect taxes.

May we suggest that instead of a criminal, Mr Garner was–in some senses–a patriot.  Here is Douglas Wilson’s take on the matter:

When Eric Garner was stopped by cops, he was being stopped by representatives of an officious and busy-pants nanny state, doing exactly what cops ought not to be doing. This is the same kind of thing that could have happened to someone being arrested for selling illegal Big Gulps.

I know why theft is against the law. Why is it against the law to sell cigarettes this way? When you multiply petty laws you are simply multiplying opportunities for contempt for the law to grow. And the more you multiply petty laws, the more the leeches in charge will feel like they have the right to “crack down on” those scofflaws who have managed to hang on to some of their own money.

And, here’s Ann Coulter‘s:

This is a tax case. It was Bloomberg that insists on, We’re going to deploy the police to collect taxes because they need to pay the pensions of their public sector union buddies. Bloomberg starts arresting all these people. . . . Everyone who has seen that tape of Eric Garner says, Oh, my gosh, they have five cops for untaxed cigarettes? . . . . (T)he Garner case is almost everything the left falsely said about Mike Brown (who was shot in Ferguson for attacking a police officer).  He really does seem to be a gentle giant. Oh, he had 31 arrests. Yes, they’re all for selling untaxed cigarettes! Notice that the left wing — you will never see fascism like a liberal trying to collect taxes!

Letter From the UK (About the Ferguson Race Riots)

A black president couldn’t stop the Ferguson race riots 

Tim Stanley
The Telegraph
August 17, 2014 

Violence continues in Ferguson, Missouri. It began on August 9 with the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American teenager cut down by a white cop’s bullets. Peaceful demonstrations turned into looting, the local police went in with rubber bullets and tear gas, all hell broke loose and, eventually, Missouri’s governor pulled out the local police and sent in state officers instead. But the rioting only paused; it didn’t cease. And it may continue. That’s probably because it’s driven by a deep, deep anger that will take a long time to calm.
Observers might ask, “How can this be happening in an America that has elected a black president?” How can black kids still get killed by white cops and how can towns still burn in race riots?

Part of the explanation is that the recession has been especially tough on African-Americans – reinforcing historical disparities of wealth between the races. Before the credit crunch, the median net worth of a black household was $12,124, compared with $134,992 in white households. After the crunch, the black net worth fell to just $5,677, compared with $113,149 among whites. Black home equity fell by an average of 28 per cent and retirement savings by 35 per cent. In May 2014, the black unemployment rate stood at 11.5 per cent – more than double the white jobless rate of 5.4 per cent.

To make matters worse, blacks face additional challenges at home and in the streets. There is a crisis in black fatherhood: while just 29 per cent of whites are born out of wedlock, the figure is 72 per cent for blacks. One result is a racial imbalance in welfare dependency: African-Americans make up about 13 per cent of the population yet 39.8 per cent of those on welfare rolls. Other frightening statistics point to a serious cultural malaise. Four out of five black women are overweight or obese; black women account for nearly 36 per cent of all abortions performed in the United States.

All of this is made worse by a police and judicial system that seems not just imbalanced against blacks but actually designed to put more of them in prison. The War on Drugs and mandatory sentencing has gone hand-in-hand with racial profiling to send large numbers of African-Americans to jail for small infractions: they now account for around 40 per cent of the prison population. For a sense of how, for many blacks, the police are an agency of state repression, consider this alarming fact: in Ferguson, 67 per cent of residents are black but 94 per cent of the local police are white.

Why has electing a black president not changed all of this? One answer is that while Obama is a president who is black, he has never sold himself as an expressly black president – that is, he tries to operate outside of the racial narrative rather than play a leadership role within it. He is evidence to the young black child that, yes, anyone can make it in America.

But what he was never going to be was someone who would confront racism head on or seek a substantial redistribution of power and money of the variety that many civil rights leaders feel is necessary to help the poor.

President Obama has tried on occasion to talk about race, but its political consequences have tended to be negative. When Trayvon Martin was shot dead by vigilante George Zimmerman, Obama remarked that he could have been his son – and it did nothing to help convict Zimmerman. On the contrary, many conservatives took exception to the remarks for it seemed like an inappropriate injection of national politics into a case facing the courts.

Obama has commented on Ferguson but mostly to appeal for calm and ask for a proper investigation of what happened.

If there is hope for real change, some of it might come from the Right. In general, they have been horrified by events in Ferguson – not so much by the looting (condemned by almost everyone) but by the obvious iniquities in the law-and-order system. Jonah Goldberg, a highly respected Right-wing columnist, argued that “the idea that police forces shouldn’t take into account the racial or ethnic make-up of their communities when it comes to hiring [is] bizarre.”

Senator Rand Paul, a libertarian Republican who would like to be president, has condemned both the militarisation of the police and the country’s drug laws. Meanwhile, many Republicans are embracing prison reform.

Of course, it will be the black community that will lead the fight for change. Fortunately, there is an expanding black middle class to offer a model of self-improvement and the black church remains a beacon of activism and uplift. Sadly, what they have discovered since the days of the civil rights movement is that government isn’t always their best friend and the promises of the Left can be empty. Change will come from within towns like Ferguson, not from within the White House.

Letter From America (About Militarising the Police)

We Must Demilitarize the Police

Senator Rand Paul

Time Magazine

14 August, 2014

[One of the horrible consequences of political rhetoric which brands causes as a “war”, as in “the war against drugs” or the “war against poverty” or the “war against terrorism” is that government authorities progressively see themselves as a military force.  When it comes to policing, it is a very small step to militarise the police, so that they resemble (and act like) an invading army, not a protector of the public.  Rand Paul’s piece below is right on the money. Ed.]

The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation.
If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.
The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.  The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.

But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.

Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:

Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.
It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.

The Cato Institute’s Walter Olson observed this week how the rising militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson:

Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? (“‘This my property!’ he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.”) Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone”?

Olson added, “the dominant visual aspect of the story, however, has been the sight of overpowering police forces confronting unarmed protesters who are seen waving signs or just their hands.”

How did this happen?

. . . an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone”

Most police officers are good cops and good people. It is an unquestionably difficult job, especially in the current circumstances.

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment.”

Bernick continued, “federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.”  Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they serve, “today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police departments across the country—tanks included.”

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.  This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.  Let us continue to pray for Michael Brown’s family, the people of Ferguson, police, and citizens alike.

Leaving It to the Professionals

Inertia, Passivity and Cowardice

Ten years or so ago the NZ Police actively discouraged citizens from attempting to prevent crime in the process of occurring.   The police put themselves forward as the “experts” and told all “amateurs” to mind their own business.  No doubt this was motivated in part by wanting to protect unarmed and untrained civilians from harm.  But it was also due, we believe, to the prevailing climate of the time, which obsessed about political correctness with officialdom acting as society’s nappy-changers.

It occasionally goes so far as to bring prosecutions against citizens who run down thieves, for example, and apprehend them.  Conscientious citizens have been charged with varieties of offences, such as assault, or kidnapping.  Clearly in such cases there are elements of discretion but it has seemed to ordinary citizens that some prosecutions appear vexatious to say the least.  Rarely have the police explained positively and clearly what the rights of citizens are with respect to apprehension of criminals caught in the act and the rights of making citizens’ arrests. Rarely do the police actively encourage citizens to apprehend people in a lawful manner, explaining the boundaries, rules, citizens rights, duties and the relevant law.  “Leave it to us” is the usual message, “we’re the experts”. 

Here is an information piece on the rights of citizens when it comes to self-defence, protection of property, and making citizen’s arrests for those readers interested.  And here is the recent case of a Christchurch man convicted of kidnapping after apprehending thieves at his business.

Kaiapoi business owner Dave Clemence has been fined $3000 after being found guilty of kidnapping  two thieves. Christchurch District Court Judge Gary MacAskill said Clemence acted in disregard of the victims’ rights by detaining and delivering to police two thieves who had been caught and beaten by men who were his associates or employees. He told Clemence: “You took the law into your own hands and did that which the law does not allow. You are to be held accountable for your conduct.”  The judge refused the defence bid for a discharge without conviction, and gave Clemence the required first-strike warning about repeat violent offending.

Good one, judge.  Of course, if  Dave Clemence had been a well-known, elite sportsperson, he would not only have been discharged without conviction, but enjoyed permanent name suppression for the next two millennia (but we digress).  In the light of the Clemence case, consider the following:

Police are praising the actions of three people who stepped in and stopped a man allegedly beating a woman on a busy road.  Kamo Senior Sergeant Dan Cleaver said a 20-year-old man and 21-year-old woman were arguing near a bus stop on Kamo Road when the man started allegedly assaulting the woman about 7pm last Friday.

Three members of the public, two men and one woman, stepped in to stop the violent assault.  Mr Cleaver said the 20-year-old man then turned on the three people and started punching them while continuing his assault on the female victim.  He then took off and was arrested by police a short while later.  One of the men received moderate injuries and the other two people received minor injuries.  Mr Cleaver said the bravery of the three members of the public probably saved the woman’s life, as the offender’s attack was very violent.

“We encourage people to take a stand against family violence and police would like to thank the three people for having the courage to intervene and stop the violence,” Mr Cleaver said.

What these police know, as do we all, is that to intervene and take a stand against such violence necessarily requires that one must be violent to one degree or other.  And we believe strongly that the police are righteous in commending such actions and encouraging such citizens’ responsibility, provided the force employed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Earlier this year, a vicious daytime assault took place upon a woman in Auckland.  She screamed for help, but neighbours just watched. 

A mum viciously attacked on her daily walk is furious that up to a dozen witnesses refused to intervene.  The daytime attack that left Praveet Singh with fractured eye sockets and a broken nose has sparked calls for Kiwis to “do their duty to one another”.

Singh, 40, was on her regular pre-dinner walk near her home in Papatoetoe, Auckland, on Thursday when she was set upon in the street by a man who allegedly started punching her, and threw a bottle at her.  Singh sought safety in a driveway but she said the man chased her and the attack continued.  The mother of two said homeowners watched as the beating continued. One had pushed her back towards her attacker. “The neighbourhood gathered and I kept screaming for help and no one did anything. It was a freakshow to them. I’ve been beaten nearly to death and there were spectators.”

Why did neighbours just watch?  Why did they not do what the folk in Kamo did, referred to above?

The first excuse was that it was a domestic dispute and it would be wrong to interfere.

Narendra Kumar said he initially thought it was a domestic assault and had been reluctant to intervene.

Inexcusable.  Another neighbour feared retribution, firstly from the police, and secondly from the attacker if he stepped up.

Another neighbour who saw the attack said he was afraid of being charged with assault if he got involved. “Otherwise we would have done something. We feel the New Zealand self-defence rules are really too poor. The attacker’s seen us before. If he gets released from jail, he could come here.”  [Emphasis, ours]

To the extent that the police and the justice system have led that neighbour to think he might be prosecuted if he got involved, government agencies and officials and the courts are manifestly at fault.  The police and the ministry of justice cannot have it both ways.  They cannot encourage people to go to the aid and defence of others being attacked–congratulating them when they do, as happened in Kamo–and at the same time repeatedly give the impression that the citizen-defender may well be prosecuted himself.

Retired police detective inspector Graham Bell, presenter of Police Ten 7 on TV, said the [Auckland] attack was deplorable. “There’s a growing tendency for people to just not want to look over the fence or keep looking at the ground and just moving on.”  They might be worried about being hurt, about repercussions from offenders, and not getting the back-up of courts if they intervened.

“Public violence has got worse than it once was. For that reason people are more frightened than they used to be. I think the potential for personal injury is much higher than it once was. You know the police can’t do everything. The police really are only as good as the rest of the citizenry. We all have a duty to one another. The courts need to do more to back up people who do intervene in good faith.”

The police in particular need to start giving coherent, clear messages.  Firstly, the police need to decide whether it is both necessary and morally imperative for people to become involved preventing observed criminal acts.  Do the police really believe, as Graham Bell argues, that the “police are only as good as the rest of the citizenry”?  If so, the duties of citizenry in this regard need to be more clearly spelled out, repeatedly, by the police and politicians and officials.  For too long we have been encouraged to be passive–“leave it to the police”.  Call 111 and walk away.  But it will never suffice–and enlightened law enforcement officials know that.  Such an approach leads to the actions of Praveet Singh’s neighbours or, more accurately, inactions.

We believe that communities and citizens in general need to be educated and challenged constantly in these matters.  We do have a moral duty to defend our neighbours and fellow citizens and their property.  It would be very helpful for the NZ Police to remind us of this frequently.  The Bible teaches that if you see a thief in action and do nothing, morally you have given the thief your consent and become a thief-in-heart yourself.

Secondly, society needs to be instructed constantly about what to do and what the citizen’s legal rights are–that is, what is lawful and what is not, when it comes to stepping forward to prevent criminals breaking the law.  Thirdly, when a citizen does intervene, only to be subsequently prosecuted, there is a duty upon the police to provide clear explanation and justification as to why a prosecution is being taken.  Otherwise we all should resign ourselves to seeing more of Praveet Singh’s neighbours and less of the three brave and upright people of Kamo.  Finally, the courts in any such prosecutions need to reflect the citizens duty of care to neighbours and their property as the case is ruled and adjudicated.

The police, without appropriate citizen policing, will never be good enough.  Graham Bell is right.  

  
 

Frogs in a Boiling Pot of Crime, Part V

Winning Some Battles, But Not Yet The War

The tide of crime seems to be receding in New Zealand, according to the latest statistics released by police.  The Minister of Police has claimed the following in a press release:

Police Minister Anne Tolley has praised frontline Police, with recorded offences down for the third fiscal year in a row, and a massive 17.4 per cent drop in crimes in the past three years.  There were 29,337 fewer recorded offences in the year to June 2013, a fall of 7.4 per cent, representing a 7.9 per cent drop per head of population.  In the past three years there were 76,775 fewer crimes, with a fall of 5.2 per cent last year, and 5.8 per cent the previous year.

This is good news, although it needs qualifying (see below).  There was some bad news, however, tucked away at the bottom of the release:

However, there were increases in both dwelling assaults and sexual assaults.  “Both of these areas, which we know include domestic violence incidents, are under-reported, and I would continue to encourage victims to come forward,” says Mrs Tolley.  “I am assured by Police that they are continuing to treat these issues as a high priority, as they work towards compiling definitive family violence statistics.

There is no doubt the NZ Police are much smarter in how they go about their work these days.
  One advance is an increasing interaction with other social agencies (both government and non-government).  There was a time when the NZ Police were like an adamant fortress.  Policing was their business; it was no-one else’s; get out of our patch.  It operated more like a trade union than anything else.  These days that attitude is attenuating markedly; we hope it disappears in the dustbin of history for ever. 

The NZ Police operate more now with a working assumption that crime is thoroughly integrated into society: therefore, the police also need to be integrated into society in their work.  This means far more engagement with social institutions like families, businesses, communities, schools, welfare agencies, neighbourhoods.  The engagement is twofold (in a general sense).  The first is educational: explaining to the wider social network the patterns of crime in the local neighbourhood and community.  The second is developing alliances in the community by encouraging agencies, groups, and communities to work with police in opposing and reducing crime.  As community groups–and the leading individuals within them–get to know their police personally, mutual trust is likely to develop, to where the whole community works to help the police do their job. 

This represents a “back to the future” reformation. In 2008 an academic, Dr Lech Beltowski was interviewed on national radio. 

During this interview he touched upon what amounts to, not just disillusionment, but the general public’s increasing sense of alienation from the police and the justice system.  He outlined how historically the role of self-protection by the citizen has always been vital in the fight against crime, as was intended by the founder of the (sic) modern policing, Sir Robert Peel.  He added that this had now been undermined by current policing methods which empower the criminals at the expense of the law abiding citizen, who are (sic) no longer free to defend themselves and their property. 

The “self-defence” element encouraged by Peel, he argued, had been turned on its head with the police all too often behaving as though it is the general public who needed to be controlled, not the criminals. [David Fraser,  Badlands. NZ: A Land Fit For Criminals (Kaukapakapa, Auckland: Howling At The Moon Publishing, Ltd, 2011), p.70f.]

Commendably, these attitudes and institutional bents seems to be changing substantially in operational policing in New Zealand. 

We believe this is a huge advance, and it is starting to bear fruit, as made evident by the latest crime statistics.  Implied within this approach is a very important principle: policing is a community responsibility before it is the NZ Police’s.  If a community tolerates misbehaviour and petty crime, the criminal underworld will very quickly conclude it is “criminal friendly” and will move in by osmosis.  A more lawless cohort will drift into the area seeking rental accommodation: criminal acts will increase.  If meaningful pressure from the neighbourhood is brought to bear upon those living on the darker side, informal criminal social groups tend to move on and their jungle drums beat the warning to their fraternities.  Some communities become known as “unsafe” for those of a more criminal bent. 

A second principle is equally important:  the community needs to be engaged in punishment and the correction of younger, less serious offenders before it is too late and they become confirmed in criminal careers.  For younger offenders facing the wrath and disgust and pain of one’s extended family over one’s actions, coupled with an earnest desire to help the offender get straightened out, and make appropriate acts of restitution to victims are powerful tools both to punish, correct, and restore younger offenders.  Oftentimes this works alongside community groups contributing job-training, life skills, and helping to find work.  These are things the police cannot do on their own, but require lots of integration into the community and engagement from the community to help and contribute and play an appropriate role. 

We were told recently by a policeman of his experience with angry young Maori men whose modus operandi is often to taunt white police (once arrested) with their Maori heritage, along the lines of, “You don’t belong here.  This land is ours.  My grandfather was in the Maori Battalion, etc. etc.”  He frequently  retorts: “That’s all well and good.  And what do you think your ancestors would think of you now?   They would be ashamed and disgusted at the way you have just behaved.”  Community sentencing and restorative justice carries this principle back into the communities from which the criminal tyro has emerged.  

These strategies of integrating much more into the community have been systematically employed by NZ Police over the past few years.  There is no doubt they are bearing fruit.

“Our Police have been working hard to focus on crime prevention, and these excellent results show that their efforts are paying huge dividends,” says Mrs Tolley.  “Our frontline officers are better-resourced than ever, and are increasing their presence on the streets to prevent and tackle crime.  Foot patrols were up 70 per cent last year, and new technology such as smartphones and tablets are allowing officers to input and access important, up to the minute information, as well as delivering over half a million additional crime prevention hours every year.”

Domestic violence will prove a much harder nut to crack.  Most are fuelled by alcohol.  But the zero tolerance and “It’s not OK” approach will likely have some effect over time.

One very important caveat is the quality and incompleteness of data. This is not to gainsay advances made, but to keep them grounded in reality.  Crime victim surveys reveal that the general population suffers far more from crime than the police statistics would suggest (since the latter are drawn from police involvement, which is but a subset of crime.)

In our next post on the “Boiling Pot of Crime” we will review the results of crime victim surveys undertaken in New Zealand.  Whilst these do not negate the recent real advances the NZ Police are making they do provide a very sharp reminder that crime is a far, far bigger problem than what is recorded in the official NZ crime statistics.  We continue to live in a boiling pot of crime.  There is much, much more work to be done.  We have “miles to go” before we sleep.

It is thus apt that we conclude this piece quoting from Robert Frost’s Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening–remembering that every citizen has a lifelong responsibility to resist and combat crime and criminal behaviour whenever it is seen:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.   

But I have promises to keep,   

And miles to go before I sleep,   

And miles to go before I sleep.

Frogs in a Boiling Pot of Crime, Part IV

Miles to Go

In his book, Badlands David Fraser makes the point that the NZ Police force is undermanned.  To be sure, no-one appreciates a fat, bloated inefficient government department.  But policing is a core government responsibility, and even less appreciation should apply when a police force is overwhelmed by crime. 

But is it really true that the police force is undermanned and that crime is winning?  The current received wisdom is that for the first time in a long time we are winning the battle against crime.  The government has set targets for fighting crime: by June 2017, reduce total crime by 15 per cent, violent crime by 20 per cent, and youth crime by 5 per cent.  In July 2013 it announced progress made:

In the past year, youth crime fell by 12 per cent and total crime by 6 per cent. Justice Minister Judith Collins said young people made up a third of all arrests, and if they could be kept out of court in their teens then they stood a good chance of staying out of the justice system for life. NZ Herald.

So far, so good.  Will it continue?
  We hope so.  To be sure, policing is a lot smarter now than it was fifteen years ago.  It is a lot more thoughtful, researched, intelligent and focused.  But we also need to be reminded of the sheer size of the task.

How can the New Zealand police force, whose size in 2008 was only just over 8,000, cope with a crime rate of almost 3 million crimes a year–as measured by the Victim Survey?  Just on the basis of the police recorded crime figure of 427,000 crimes per year (2005) the police are expected to deal with 52 crimes for very police officer each year, or approximately one new crime per policeman per week.  These are impossible odds. . . . (N)o matter how resourceful, how clever, how determined the police are, they will not win the war against crime because they are too thin on the ground.  To make matters worse, when their hard work is rewarded with an arrest, they are frequently undermined by the courts who more often than not release the criminals back into the community. [David Fraser,  Badlands. NZ: A Land Fit For Criminals (Kaukapakapa, Auckland: Howling At The Moon Publishing, Ltd, 2011), p.40f.]

Nor must we be ignorant of the non-virtuous circle which so easily sets in.  Discouragement at the lack of progress in seeing our communities becoming more peaceful and law abiding leads to a consistently high burn out rate and attrition of officers.  The Police force has to work hard just to stay still.  And competence on the job can take years to learn.

Another significant impediment in the fight against crime is the creeping expansion of criminal rights.  New Zealand, along with most Western countries, has merrily tripped along the path of writing into law the various human rights declarations and promotions by the United Nations.  These are found in statutes such as the Bill of Rights Act (1990), the Privacy Act (1993) and the Human Rights Act (1993).  The unintended consequence of these acts has been generally to make it

more difficult for the police to chase, follow, and intercept criminals, and so make it much harder to build a case against them and bring them to book. (Ibid., p. 45). 

Naturally this was never the intent of these pieces of legislation which were aimed far more at the threat of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes moving progressively to enslave their own people.  It was not the intent to make life easier for criminals.  But, as is so often the case, the unintended effects are what produce a rotten harvest.

At the same time, it is generally true that what these pieces of legislation stipulate concerning the safety and protection of the lawkeeping citizen is largely ignored.  The UN Declaration on Human Rights (to which NZ is a signatory) stipulates that “Everyone has the right to life, freedom, and safety from harm” and “everyone shall have equal recognition and protection under law.”  Failure to win the fight against crime and to bring criminals to justice is a breach of these articles.  But rarely is this held out as a fundamental human right and something the government must see to.

There is a direct connection between sentencing policies and the breach of these articles by the government and judicial authorities.  When career criminals are released back into society by means of bail, or parole, or early release, or non-custodial sentences and go on to commit crimes against life, limb, and property of citizens, the government is violating these articles.  As Fraser argues

These Articles directly implicate all of those involved int he development of criminal justice sentencing policies, because these result in the destruction of these human rights of countless numbers of law-abiding citizens.  Their guilt in this respect is all the more certain because they are able accurately to predict the likelihood of further offending, yet despite this, they allow the release of thousands of criminals to be supervised by the probation service, knowing that it is certain these offenders will carry on committing crime and by so doing, undermine the safety of the public, supposedly guaranteed by the 1948 Declaration [of Human Rights], and again by the Bill of Rights. (Ibid., p. 46.)

We are thankful for the progress made in the last two years or so in fighting and punishing crime.  It would be so easy to conclude the job has been done and move on to other priorities.  The reality is we have only made a beginning.  Whilst the woods may be lovely, dark, and deep we have miles to go before we sleep–yes, miles to go before we sleep. 

Preening Self-Importance

Judicial Pettifogging

We recently had a judge in this fair country who suspended a court case about very serious criminal offending by a criminal gang.  The pretext: judicial offence.  The judge believed the police had not treated the courts and judges with suitable gravity and respect.  Therefore, like a petulant child, he stayed the prosecution.  How puerile.

Here is columnist John Roughan’s take on the matter:

Justice mounts a high horse 
By John Roughan 5:30 AM
Saturday Oct 27, 2012
NZ Herald

Was it really necessary to let indignation ruin a police case?

Expand

Undercover police work is a dangerous task for the personnel involved. Photo / NZPA 

Undercover police work is probably the most dangerous public service anyone can be asked to do in this country. As an ordinary citizen, I don’t find it offensive that police would fake a prosecution to protect someone’s cover.

I find it harder to credit that a High Court judge would let 21 people off criminal charges to demonstrate judicial indignation. If you didn’t  read the news closely, or heard it only on TV, you might have the impression the phony prosecution was the one that was thrown out this week. It wasn’t. The charade was done in a district court sometime earlier and Justice Simon France concedes it did not prejudice the case in front of him.

Nevertheless, he decided a stay of prosecution was necessary to protect the courts from deception and declare that the police must not abuse its procedures to assist a criminal investigation. Really?

The integrity of the courts is obviously important, possibly as important as an undercover agent’s life. Information sworn before an officer of the courts is our best assurance of truth in all the transactions of life. It is vital that nobody dares trifle with it.

The ruse that raised the ire of Justice France does sound a bit silly.  Nelson police infiltrated a group called the Red Devils Motorcycle Club that they believed could become a chapter of Hell’s Angels. When they thought one of their covert operators was coming under suspicion they planted some drug equipment and stolen goods in a lock-up they had hired for him.  They forged a search warrant that purported to be signed by a court official, then summoned the owner of the lock-up who had to come quite a distance to open it for them.

The undercover constable was duly arrested and charged. The plan was to have him plead guilty and get convicted quickly. But a complication arose when the Red Devils decided to get him a serious lawyer.
Proceedings became drawn out. For the sake of realism, and since he was out of town anyway, his handlers had him miss call-ups in the Nelson District Court. Twice a bench warrant was issued and a bail breach charge was laid.

Justice France tells this story without a trace of the amusement it arouses in me. “Soon after,” he says, “the operation was terminated and police sought to have the charges withdrawn.” It is probably not unusual for undercover police to be caught up in the criminal activity they are investigating and to be prosecuted for the sake of their credibility. But this is the first case Justice France can find that was deliberately set up for that purpose.

For unintended prosecutions the police have to get permission from the Chief District Court Judge to use the undercover agent’s false name, and that was done in this case too.  But Justice France thinks the Chief Judge, the late Russell Johnson, was not aware that this one was a complete set-up and that this would have made a difference to Judge Johnson, who I knew when he was a very popular prosecutor in Auckland.
Maybe the police deceived him. They were a little deceptive in their testimony to Justice France, not letting on initially that they had written their guidelines for a planned prosecution after the event.

Yet he prefers to conclude they did not intend to deceive anybody and believed they were acting legally. They were merely “reckless” and “unwise” not to have sought wider advice.

Why, then, did he find it necessary to undo all their work and grant the 21 arrested a stay of prosecution?
“A fraud is being committed on the courts,” he said. “The judges who are dealing with it are being treated in a disrespectful way. Their time is being taken up with a fiction.”

Forgive me some disrespect; time is not exactly a priority in the judicial process, as anyone who has answered a call to jury service well knows.  More seriously, Justice France declared, “It is no function of the court to facilitate a police investigation by lending its processes to the false creation of street credibility. The courts are not part of police investigation. There is and can be no suggestion of collaboration.”

Fine words, if they were true. What about when undercover officers are allowed to be charged under a false name?  “Perhaps the two situations are quite similar,” he concedes, “But from my viewpoint all that does is call into question the correctness of the false name practice.” Oh dear.

Undercover police work happens a long way from a High Court bench. It is not only dangerous, it is difficult. It has to deceive innocent people as well as the guilty if the agent is to be effective and safe.

When judges can help, I think they should.

Quite.

The Nanny State is Taking a Hit

 Taking Responsibility For One’s Own Safety

As so often happens, we have another case of women leading social change.  This time it is in the United States.  Women are moving rapidly and in sizeable numbers to be pro-gun.  It’s progress, Jim, but not as we know it.  This, from the Sydney Morning Herald:

Robin Natanel picks up a compact black pistol, barrel pointed down range. Gripping the gun with both hands, left foot forward, she raises the semi-automatic and methodically squeezes off five shots. The first one creases the left edge of a red bull’s-eye on a target 7.5 metres away. The four others paint a 7.5-centimetre pattern around the first. If the target were a person’s head or heart, he would probably be dead.

Natanel is a Buddhist, a self-avowed ”spiritual person,” a 53-year-old divorcee who lives alone in a liberal-leaning suburb near Boston. She is 153 centimetres and has blonde hair, dark eyes, a ready smile and a soothing voice, with a hint of Boston brogue. She’s a Tai Chi instructor who in classes invokes the benefits of meditation. And at least twice a month, she takes her German-made Walther PK380 to a shooting range and blazes away.

She joins a cohort of people that used to be regarded as anti-gun: liberal, progressive, homosexuals, college-students–and female.  But, in the last four years domestic handgun production and imports have doubled in the United States.  Its a fe-nom.

Twenty years ago, 76 per cent of women felt that . . . handguns [were implicitly dangerous and thought that no-one should be allowed to have them], and 68 per cent of all people in the US were wary enough of firearms of any kind to tell Gallup pollsters that they backed laws more strictly limiting their sale. Then what Gallup calls ”a clear societal change” began.

In October, a Gallup poll found record-low support for a handgun ban – at 26 per cent among all, and 31 per cent among women. The poll, which has tracked gun attitudes since 1959, documented a record-low 43 per cent who favour making it more difficult to acquire guns. Forty-seven per cent said someone in the household owned at least one gun, the highest reading in 18 years.

New groups are “arming up”–and not the ones previously found.  

Besides Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, there are the Pink Pistols, Mothers Arms, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Second Amendment Sisters, the Women’s Firearm Network and the International Defensive Pistol Association, among others. Their influence may be outsized in gaining converts as they set up Facebook pages, churn out blogs and post recruiting videos on YouTube.

Part of the rising popularity is due to people coming to believe that the police protections are largely fictional.  They fear getting caught short and without protection.  Moreover, the image of gun ownership is changing due to the fear promulgated by anti-gun activists that if lots of people carry firearms, mild arguments would end up in people being shot and killed.  It hasn’t happened.  So, the scaremongering  has backfired. 

In any safe society, the first line of policing is always citizens defending themselves.  When police and authorities attempt to subvert this most fundamental aspect of policing, criminals gang up and eventually exert control. 

>Tolerable Road Deaths?

>Zero is Vaingloriously Stupid

We have long been uncomfortable with the paradigm the New Zealand police bring to road deaths. It has all the hallmarks of being excessively bureaucratic and utopian. “Goody two-shoes” on steroids.

Over Easter, five people died in road accidents. This low number was attributed to enhanced policing presence and activity. More cops and cameras out on roads. But the police gravely tell us that five is still too high. Which begs the question: what is the “right” number of deaths on the road in a weekend? What would be tolerable? What would be “about right”? Paula Rose, boss of the national traffic policing division has a ready answer. Zero. The police apparently will not rest or believe their job is properly done until no-one dies on New Zealand roads.

This is hyperbolic, utopian nonsense. Bear in mind that policing the roads necessarily commits the police to “preventative policing”. They are enforcing rules and regulations in an effort to prevent deaths occurring on the roads. Breaching the rules does not mean one commits a criminal act. It means that one is guilty of breaching a regulation intended to prevent a possible accident.

Compare this to murder. In 2010, there were 97 murders in New Zealand. Too many, or about right? Well, we could have two approaches to this. One would be to use the bureaucratic, utopian model, the preventive policing model that is applied to road fatalities and injuries. Using this model, we would affirm that 97 murders is “way too many” and that the police would be satisfied only when there were zero murders in the community.

To achieve this would require promulgating a raft of preventative rules and regulations: restrictions and directions upon the human social activities and commercial activities where murders predominantly occur. Curfews, permits, permissions, mandatory security guard presence–these and a hundred other rules and regulations governing our behaviour would need to be promulgated. Then, when isolated, murder “hot-spots” would require a greatly enhanced police presence to ensure that the preventative regulations were adhered to, so that eventually all murders would be prevented. The drive to achieve the utopian goal of zero murders in New Zealand would, if allowed to run its course, eventually require a police presence in just about every pub and bar, social gathering, work place, and residential dwelling in the country.

The second approach to murder–which is the current model–would be reactive policing. It is a sad but true fact of life in a fallen world that homicide exists. The reactive policing model endeavours to track the murderer down, convict him in a court of law, and punish him. Successful policing in this model is measured by detection, arrest, and conviction rates.

The bureaucratic model seeks to manage all evils out of human society through its vast, expanding and all-engulfing planned cocoon. “Ve hav ways of making you righteous, Ja.” It sounds so noble. Those who articulate the plan ooze rectitude. But the whole enterprise is self-deceiving and dishonest. The state is not the Redeemer. Rules and regulations cannot save. They cannot make people righteous. But we can spend an awful lot of money, time, effort in giving it a good college try, right? And we will all feel good about ourselves along the way.

Meanwhile, in many parts of the country the police are “too busy” to respond to calls for help. Zero tolerance policing is impossible because police are “too busy”. And what are they so busy about? Well, one focus is preventing accidents on roads. One accidental road death is one too many, remember.

We can hear folk expostulating–“something has to be done to keep our roads safe”. No doubt. But we believe preventative policing is not that “something”. There has got to be a better way. No doubt the police would have a role–in the reactive policing model. People who do harm and damage to others should be prosecuted in the criminal courts in the worst cases, in civil courts where lesser damage is at issue. Get rid of the “no-fault” ACC socialist nirvana compensation scheme. Hold people responsible and accountable for their actions, rather than trying to make them responsible by ensuring their compliance with micro-managing regulations. Focus police upon crime, not death prevention. Last time we checked manslaughter was a crime.  Abolish all national speed restrictions and replace them with local authority restrictions and rules, and local authority policing of the rules. If local authorities can supervise parking, they can supervise (local) road rules, regulations, speeds etc.

Yes, this would result in an “uneven” system of roading governance. It would also mean that the rules and regulations would be more under the scrutiny of local communities. Realistic trade-offs would be more likely. Sure a local body might have a “zero death” policy in their area. But the cost to the local community, to business, employment, commerce, and civic freedoms would be far more apparent, measurable, and tradeable. The resulting administrations would likely be more reasonable and realistic, coupled with fewer vainglorious messianic pretensions.  It would be reflect a system of administration more appropriate to our fallen world. 

>Blog of the Day

>Of Coffins and Cars

This from MacDoctor:

So the typical liberal arguments for doing away with police pursuits – that the kids are scared witless or are dying for minor offenses – are both nonsense. Police have a duty to uphold the law and if they can give chase without endangering the public, they should do so. Blaming police for the deaths of runners is like blaming a doctor for the death of a terminal cancer patient – fairly pointless and not terribly fair. You are not going to stop kids from killing themselves in cars if you ban police pursuits. Teenagers will always find another risky thrill. All you will have taught them is that the police are powerless to stop them.

There is no law that you can pass that will reduce the number of teenagers dying on the roads. Even if you raised the legal driving age to 20, there would still be plenty of kids driving illegally. The only thing that has any chance of success is for parents to teach kids not only their driving skills but also the appreciation that the turbo-charged monster they are driving can become a high-speed coffin in the blink of an eye and that it is NOT a big, shiny toy, but a lethal weapon.

>Police Investigation Procedures

>Behind The Times

The murder of the Kahui twins remains officially unsolved. Their father was charged, but acquitted with the jury allegedly deliberating for one minute!

“The Star-Times understands the Kahui jury deliberated for just one minute not 10 minutes as previously reported. As soon as the jury was sent to deliberate, members were polled and everyone said Kahui was not guilty that took one minute. The jury then went to lunch and returned its verdict as soon as lunch was over.” Alexander, Miriyana (2008-06-01). “Loudmouth juror put Kahui trial at risk”. Sunday Star Times. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4568159a10.html. Retrieved 2008-06-01.

A review of the police procedures by the Independent Police Complaints Authority indicated that the police had made some mistakes in the way they proceeded. Persistent questions remain over the Scott Watson conviction. The David Bain conviction was subsequently overturned. And in one of the biggest scandals of all, Peter Ellis remains falsely convicted in the Christchurch Creche Case and the justice system refuses to support an independent inquiry. This overt miscarriage of justice is exhaustively documented in Lynley Hood’s book, A City Possessed. http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1877135623&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr

While the current system is not broken, it is definitely impaired. Unfortunately, New Zealand is not alone. Recently, the Special Broadcasting Service in Australia aired the documentary Every Family’s Nightmare which deals with a completely messed up case by the police in Western Australia. According to a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald,

Patrick Waring, 15, was accused of rape. The rape was supposed to have taken place several times in a busy Perth park in broad daylight close to the WA police academy. He was arrested in the middle of the night while his parents were away, and locked up. He was denied bail and kept in prison for almost a year.

The evidence was that Waring tried to chat up the young woman who made the allegation against him and saved her mobile number in his phone. This was something that initially he denied doing.

However, the forensic side of the case was a shambles. The accused’s clothing, which the police used as evidence, was contaminated. The crime scene wasn’t immediately secured and it became contaminated. The pathology reports showed an absence of young Patrick’s DNA in the complainant’s intimate samples, and vice versa.

But the police persisted in taking the case to trial, which was eventually thrown out.

The documentary highlights how critical changes made in the UK as a result of a number of high profile unsafe convictions have yet to be made in Australia, and to our knowledge, in New Zealand.

One of the important developments in England in the 1990s was the formal adoption by police and investigators of what is known as the ”eliminative” approach. This followed a couple of high-profile miscarriage cases, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. The eliminative approach requires evidence be applied in a way to eliminate people from the pool of suspects.

Police forces around Australia, and certainly in WA and NSW, use a ”nominative” approach. A suspect is nominated and a case built around that person. This can and does mean evidence is used selectively. In England and Scotland the nominative approach is regarded as discredited. Not here, which may explain why Napper is on the nose with police in a number of Australian states.

Most of the unsafe convictions in New Zealand appear to have resulted from the nominative approach where a suspect is identified, then a case built around him or her. This inevitably violates a fundamental rule in investigation–that of keeping an open mind. It predisposes an investigation team toward ranking some evidence as important and relevant and discarding contrary evidence that does not fit the suspect.

By contrast the eliminative approach applies the eminently sensible dictum of Conan Doyle, expressed by Sherlock Holmes: “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” (From A Study in Scarlet.) http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1402770820&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr

Secondly, the UK has elevated the role and importance of independent forensic investigation of the crime scene where the police are kept at arms length.

Also appearing in the documentary was Professor David Barclay, a Scottish forensic scientist, who led the reforms in Britain that place the forensic people in control of the crime scene. British forensic scientists are independent of the police and prosecutors, and call a lot of the shots in criminal investigations. Here the police run the whole show.

The UK approach at work can now be seen in the UK forensic crime dramas, such as Silent Witness where the forensic team clearly operates independently of the police. New Zealand has excellent forensic scientists. They remain underfunded and work at the behest and request and direction of the police. Police budgets determine how often, when, and where they are employed.

One wonders how many high profile miscarriages of justice and failures to convict we need to go through in New Zealand before these changes are made in New Zealand. The police, of course, will continue to deny anything is wrong. “Nothing to see here. Move along”, will likely continue to be the order of the day. This is a deeply regrettable. The Sydney Morning Herald notes:

Barclay also worked on the famous Andrew Mallard case in WA. Mallard was accused and found guilty after making a false ”confession” of the murder of the Perth jeweller Pamela Lawrence. It was Barclay who discovered the palm print of the real murderer kept in police files for 15 years. He also uncovered other evidence pointing to Mallard’s innocence, which either had never been pursued by the police or covered up.

Who would be willing to wager that we would not have the same miscarriages of justice here in New Zealand as a result of the “nominative” approach in investigation and the police controlling the use of forensic teams.

>The S-Files

>Another Good News Story

Contra Celsum is gratified to be able to announce it has bestowed an S-Award on some anonymous and unknown students from St Paul’s College, Auckland.

This is an unusual award. We do not know the names of the recipients–only that they are 16 or 17 year old college students from St Paul’s College.

Citation:

According to reports in the media, the students stopped a vicious attack upon a city bus driver yesterday.

The reported facts are these: a belligerent man got on a bus and began to accost other passengers with foul language and racist remarks. The driver of the bus, Ian Magee, 50 year old grandfather of nine, stopped the bus and ordered the belligerent to decamp. The offending passenger grabbed Mr Magee, dragged him outside the bus, and began to assault him, hitting him six to eight times.

The St Paul’s College students got out of the bus and came to the driver’s aid, defending him from the assailant, who later ran off. Other students called the police and an ambulance. (The assailant was subsequently arrested and is facing charges of assault.)

We believe strongly in the importance of citizen policing–of taking responsibility for the care of our neighbours and doing what we can to see criminals apprehended. We believe that the deliberate gelding of citizens in the fight against crime is a short sighted and destructive policy. We believe citizen policing should be encouraged at every level of society and throughout communities.

Therefore, we wish to acknowledge the responsible and competent civil actions of these unknown students from St Paul’s College. It was a job well done. Thank you for the example set.

St Paul’s College Students: S-Award, Class I, for performing a citizen’s duty in a manner that was Smart, Sound and Salutary.

>It’s Only a Crime on a Bad-Hair Day

>The Orwellian Masterpiece

Nandor Tankfull stared vacantly off into the middle distance. “How did that happen, man?” he wondered. He had left Parliament at the last election, announcing that he wanted to “chill out” and regroup. He had spent many years, far too many wasted years as a Green MP trying to de-criminalise wacky-backy. He had failed. Too many entrenched interests, funded by big tobacco of course–and, well, yes oil companies as well. They funded everything. They had effectively taken control of the main political parties years ago. People like John Key and Helen Clark were just puppets.

Now, after spending some time in the bush, growing and smoking your own, as one does, he had returned to civilisation only to find that in his absence marijuana had been de-criminalised. He would ordinarily have been deeply depressed, thinking that all those years he must have been the real impediment to decriminalising his favourite weed all along. No sooner had he left Parliament than it was no longer a criminal offence. But thankfully he was too chilled out. His befuddled brain was trying and failing to grasp the new reality.

Sue Bradford stared at her old friend, pitying his confused state–yet at the same time chuckling inwardly. She snorted another line. “You don’t know the half of it, Nandi. The trouble with you is that you were always too direct, too obvious. Me, I am subtle in a sorta bus-like way. It’s all about feints and false moves. You should have read Sun Tzu’s Art of War when I told you.”

Nandor wondered what she meant. He asked his old friend to explain. “Well, take this snowflake I am snorting. It’s effectively decriminalised as well, now.” She went on to explain that for years she had perpetrated the feint of campaigning against child abuse. “It was all a front, Nandi. Isn’t that what Lenin and Stalin taught us years ago when we were reading them in the Socialist Action League? Remember. All those apparently legit organisations, but all fronts for us hard core radicals. In the end as you play their games, they trip themselves up and you watch them gut themselves.”

There was a bitter stridency to her tone now. No doubt the coke was kicking in. Nandor looked normal and vacant. She began to describe the clever dissimulation of campaigning against child abuse. Then, having eventually manipulated the stupid Clark over a political precipice, Sue described how she had put that oh-so-secret call in to the President of the Law Commission, suggesting the clever compromise. “But the trick is that it mustn’t be seen to come from me, Geoffrey”, she had purred down the phone.

“No worries,” the ge’ed up former law prof had said. “Leave it to me. I know just the man to use.” So it had come to pass. The gullible John Key, the oh-so-clever-by-half-currency trader, fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was like something straight out of Molotov’s playbook. “Key got to look like a statesman. Clark was shafted and made to look a fool. I got what we wanted all along. Drugs are now effectively decriminalised in New Zealand.”

Nandor had never thought of Sue as an intellectual. But it was clear that she was operating in realms in which he had never travelled. It was all too hard to grasp. Sue was patient, as one is when dealing with a lesser mortal. She carefully explained how it all worked. Firstly, all smacking of children was now a criminal offence. Anyone who smacked or exercised any force at all against children was now committing a criminal act, according to the law. Secondly, the real point lay right here. “Regardless of the law, you are not a criminal unless the Police decide to prosecute. That’s it, Nandi. That’s the stroke of brilliance. At one fell swoop we changed the definition of crime and criminality in New Zealand. And they were too dumb to see it.”

A glimmer of light began to glow in the deep recesses of Nandor’s drugged brain. “OK, I get it. Maybe. Or not.”

Sue’s patience was fast wearing thin. “Get with the plan, Stupid,” she snapped. “It’s all about seizing control. The law now makes everyone a criminal, which is to say that no-one is a criminal, unless . . .”

“Unless the Police or the State decide to prosecute,” said Nandor slowly and carefully. Sue sighed with relief. “At last, dumbo. You have got it. Eureka! We learnt this years ago in the Socialist Action League. If everyone is a criminal and is committing criminal acts, then the State can act at any time, when it wants, and how it wants against whom it wants. If crime is what the State says it is, when it decides to take notice, as and when it pleases, everybody is under its total implicit control at all times.”

“So that’s why you are saying that grass is now kosher.” Sue nodded. She explained how everything was now OK–drugs, murder, theft. It was all effectively decriminalised. They would only became criminal matters if the Police decided to take action. If you controlled the Police you were effectively free to do anything. The rule of law was now extinct–at least in principle. Crime was now defined by the Police and its actions, not the law. New Zealand had just taken a huge step forward in progressing to be a police state.

“And the stupid idiots in Parliament don’t know it. That’s the beauty of this. They are now defending the Revolution. We have got them arguing that smacking is a crime only when the Police say it is. We have actually got them agreeing and saying, ‘It is working well!’ And they are having to say it so emphatically. Hah. They don’t even know what they are actually doing.”

Nandor began to think about the new world Sue had almost single-handedly created. If it were up to the police to decide what was a crime and what was not, the law had become a spent force. But to go further, if the laws on the statute books were expanded so that everyone going about their normal business was effectively defined to be a criminal, then they could be picked up at any time. Whoever controlled the Police would have almost unlimited powers. All opponents could be criminalised at will. And it would all be “legal”. Parliament and the courts were now mere appendages. Everyone would be fearful and subject to threat and intimidation.

As Nandor reflected on how the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition party were all cheerleading for this brave new world, he smiled, took a deep long drag, and nodded. John Key and Phil Goff were only puppets all right. But the game had changed and they didn’t know it. Sue had just become a legend in his own mind.

Hat Tips: Stephen Franks; Half Done.

>The Significance of the Bain Verdict

>Some Lessons from the Trial

It would seem as if there are only two categories of people in New Zealand–those who believe that David Bain is innocent and those who believe him guilty. The verdict of Not Guilty delivered by the jury last night appears not to have changed the views of people in either category.

Well–that is an exaggeration. No doubt there is a third category–those who simply did not believe either way, and will accept the verdict as authoritative.

For those of our readers who are not from NZ, the Bain case is probably the most high profile ever to have occurred in the country. Originally convicted in 1995 of murdering his parents and three siblings, Bain served 14 years in prison. Last year, the Privy Council (the Law Lords of the House of Lords in the UK) declared that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. Bain was released, but a second trial was ordered by the Solicitor General. That trial has now concluded and Bain declared Not Guilty.

We at Contra Celsum thought we would opine on some of the more general issues surrounding the case.

Firstly, it is deeply troubling that it took the Law Lords (amongst whom many testify are some of the finest legal minds in the world) to rule that a substantial miscarriage of justice had taken place in the New Zealand courts. Not just a miscarriage–but a substantial miscarriage. (Again, for our non-NZ readers, the Privy Council in the UK until recently served as the highest court of appeal for New Zealand.)

The Bain case and the original verdict had been appealed and reviewed by appellate courts and various authorities in New Zealand. In summary:

December 19, 1995: the Court of Appeal dismissed Bain’s appeal.

May 1996: a petition seeking leave to appeal to the Privy Council failed.

November 25, 1997: the Police conducted an independent review of their investigation and procedures, and conclude that there were no serious flaws in the police investigation and that criticism of the police being incompetent was unjustified. (This conclusion has now been shown to be tendentious at best, given what has come out at the most recent trial.)

September 2003: Court of Appeal again reviews the case. It decides a retrial was not needed on the grounds that the new evidence would not have changed the jury’s verdict.

May 10, 2007: Privy Council declares a mistrial.

The judicial and investigative reviews carried out in New Zealand, for whatever reason, failed to see the substantial miscarriage of justice. That represents a huge lacunae.

In this light, it remains deeply troubling that our judicial system has had the Privy Council removed as a highest and final court of appeal. It was removed effectively by fiat, through the actions of Helen Clarke and Margaret Wilson, without public consultation, debate, or discussion. It was a truly revolutionary move.

The failure of our appellant system to see a “substantial miscarriage of justice” begs questions of competence, and equally importantly, of bias and cant. New Zealand remains a small country, with the judicial system open to charges of fiefdom and an “old boy network.” The pool of judicial talent is too small. There appears to be a deep reservation for career judges to criticise fellow judges and their opinions and actions. “What goes around comes around” appears to be alive and well. “If I rule against a court or justice, effectively criticising their legal competence, it will come around to bite me. I will offend said judge’s colleagues and friends who will one day sit in judgment upon my decisions and actions.”

The judicial system appears to find great difficulty sitting in competent, credible and disinterested judgement upon itself. This is to be expected. In most countries this is alleviated by the breadth and depth of judicial talent. In New Zealand it was checked and balanced by the Privy Council. Justice in New Zealand was weakened and undermined the day Clarke and Wilson prorogued the Privy Council.

We believe there needs to be a thorough re-assessment of what New Zealand actually lost when the Privy Council was removed, and a thorough and dispassionate review conducted by non-members of the judiciary, as to whether the new Supreme Court is sufficiently detached and removed from collegiality with the rest of the judiciary.

Secondly, the Bain trial shows the strength and wisdom of trial by jury. While there are those outside the courtroom who have very strong and emphatic opinions one way or the other, it is only those twelve people who hear all the evidence, and observe the “soft” testimony as well in which the evidence is framed–the body language, the tones of voice, the mannerisms–all of which make up a picture of credibility or believability. In the end, they have made a judgment. They are the only ones competent to make it. In making it, the matter is over.

Thirdly, some have argued for the introduction of a third verdict category which is employed in Scotland–a verdict of “Not proven.” We think that this might be a salutary development. It certainly reflects more accurately the reality of requiring a burden of proof that puts a matter beyond reasonable doubt. This, coupled with the requirement of a unanimous verdict from twelve people, is a high and exacting standard, which is exactly as it should be. The “Not proven” category allows a jury to suspend judgement upon whether the accused is guilty or innocent, and instead allows them to state that the evidence presented is not substantial or compelling enough to convict.

However, in order for “Not proven” to be acceptable requires that society at large accept that justice in this life is a limited, desultory, incomplete, and often inadequate. Now for Believers, this is both expected and fundamentally right. All that man does is limited, finite, creaturely, and dependant. We can so often only speak of probabilities, not certainties. But the citizens of Jerusalem know that the law courts of this life are preliminary courts only. They are not final courts in any sense. Therefore, Christians are very sanguine about “Not proven” in this life because they know that it is not the end of the matter. A court is to come which will infallibly and certainly just, judging with absolute truth, which has exhaustively and comprehensively revealed to it all actions, thoughts, and motives. Nothing shall remain hidden or doubtful. Justice will be final and complete and exhaustively exacting.

Unbelievers, however, find the notion of incomplete and inadequate justice in this life deeply troubling, because for them the justice of Man is all that there is. The inadequacy of justice reflects poorly upon their view of the status of mankind as a semi-divinised and autonomous being. Therefore, one wonders whether the “Not proven” option would in the end become a pretext for slandering and unfairly criticising the police and the prosecuting authorities.

Fourthly, we have been reminded again about how forensic and expert evidence can be a wax nose. It so often does not give the certainty that appears at first blush. Hearing experts confidently pronounce that one of the victims had to be alive when David Bain returned to the house because he had heard a gurgling noise appears definitive and therefore convincing, until other more experienced experts testify that it has been known to happen for dead people to make such noises–and one (from Australia) saying that he had actually heard it himself, and it was not uncommon.

Another example was the expert testimony that Robin Bain’s suicide with the rifle was impossible, only to have other, equally expert witnesses testify that it was not impossible at all. What appeared to be completely certain was suddenly not so certain any more. All of this reinforces the need for care, circumspection, and a thorough, contested review of all testimony from experts.

Finally, one cannot help be grateful, yet sympathetic toward the jury members. They have had to give up nearly three months of their lives. It is a sacrifice which we all salute and acknowledge. However, it raises the issue of how jurors are funded and remunerated. So many people are virtually forced to turn down jury service because they cannot afford it. To expect employers to carry employees over long trials such as the Bain trial is naively unrealistic. If we are to continue with jury trials–and we strongly support their continuance–it is essential that jurors (or their employers) be properly funded, so that the pool of jurors can be truly a cross section of the community.

We fear that far too many juries these days are largely made up of people who are state welfare beneficiaries of one kind or another (unemployed, retired, or “official” invalids”) because they are the only ones who can afford to devote the time to jury service. With all due respect to folk in these circumstances, it introduces a potential bias into juries which is unsavoury.

As Forrest Gump would say, “That’s all we have to say about that.”

>The S-Files: Gelding the Citizens

>Another Hero Abused

Contra Celsum is pleased to nominate Zhuo Feng Jiang for an S-Award for bravely defending himself, his family, and his family’s business against a criminal.

Citation:

The newsmedia have recently carried reports on a brave and heroic twenty-six year old shop worker who resisted an armed robber, snatched his gun off him, pushed him to the ground, told him to lie still, fired a warning shot, then, as the criminal tried once again to get up, shot him in the leg.

Zhuo Feng Jiang, son of the store owners, deserves a public service medal. He acted with courage, decisiveness, and true public-spiritedness. He deserves to be feted as a true hero. But, no. He is likely to face criminal charges.

Enter Mr Plod–also known as the Police.

Police have not said whether Mr Jiang will face charges, but Tokoroa Detective Senior Sergeant Todd Pearce said they did not encourage robbery victims to approach their attacker.

“This situation could easily have resulted in a fatality and it could have easily been one of victims that had been shot or killed.

“Fighting back when firearms are involved dramatically increases the danger to everyone present and should not be considered.”

Now, let us be clear. We believe very strongly in the rectitude of having a police force, just as we believe strongly in the rule of law and order. However, there are times when the law is an ass: respect for the law requires citizens to say so plainly . The dignity and rectitude of the law is not served by stupid, evil, or asinine laws. The sooner such laws are exposed and disposed of, the better for the law’s sake.

Similarly for the Police. The fight against crime and the punishment of criminals belongs firstly and fundamentally to the community. Specialised powers are devolved and delegated to the Police force. However, when the Police turn against the community and wages war upon its members when they stand up to criminals, resist them, and seek to arrest them, the Police Force has become asinine.

Thankfully, the NZ Justice system has retained a far stronger understanding of justice and of the duties and rights of private citizens to fight and resist crime. There have been a spate of vexatious prosecutions brought by the Police in recent years against people who have defended themselves against criminals, or who have sought to interdict criminals in the committing of a crime, and in the process have done grievous bodily harm to the criminal. Almost without exception, justices of the peace, judges, or juries have thrown the cases out.

The Police are completely wrong in these misguided policies and processes. It is time to re-write the PC manuals under which the Police currently operate. They increasingly show the Police up as Plods, which is terribly wrong, and must be corrected. It would be so much better in terms of fighting crime and dealing with criminals and for re-building public respect for the Police, if the Police bureaucrats in Wellington were to throw out their PC policy manuals, and the NZ Police were to award, on behalf of the NZ public, a medal to Mr Zhuo Feng Jiang for “bravery above and beyond the course”.

If the NZ Police publicly thanked Mr Shuo, public respect for the Police would increase exponentially overnight.

Zhuo Feng Jiang, Crimefighter: S-Award, Class I for actions in the course of duty that have been Smart, Sound, and Salutary. Thank you for your respect for the law and your bravery in resisting crime and criminals. The people of New Zealand are in your debt.

>The S-Files

>Getting One In for the Working Class

Contra Celsum feels compelled to nominate the NZ Maritime Union for an S-Award

The Maritime Union recently threatened strike action. The reason was to protest the actions of the New Zealand Police in receiving information from a paid informer. Amongst the information was intelligence upon various unions—including the Maritime Union. The Union said that unless it received a full explanation and apology from the Police, it would call its members out on strike in protest.

Citation:

The strike threat system at best represents legally sanctioned extortion or stand-over tactics. At worst it is anarchistic and destructive to social order and peace. Either way, it always involves theft—taking or damaging the property of others against their will. It always involves breach of contract. The strike threat system is intrinsically evil. Regardless of what malodorous practice an employer engages in, the strike only compounds the evil because two wrongs do not make a right. You cannot do evil that good may come.

Every now and then the strike threat plumbs new depths of inanity. The NZ Maritime Union has made itself eligible for an S-Award because its mangled reasoning on the recent NZ Police spying scandal represents scraping the bottom of the barrel of foolishness.

There are many legitimate questions to be asked and answered over the NZ Police using an informant to infiltrate left-wing protest groups and inform on the activities of their members. Since some of the individuals involved in these groups have committed crimes in the past (the destruction of the property of others as part of their “protest” action is well documented), and since the protest groups potentially represented a conspiracy to commit crimes in the future, there is an arguable case for infiltration and intelligence gathering. Undercover work has long been a recognised and legitimate policing action.

But if, as it now seems, the intelligence gathering has extended to groups not (at least prima facie) involved in either criminal acts or conspiracies to commit crimes, serious issues emerge—which must be faced. Thus far, we understand the ire of the Maritime Union.

What is both inexplicable and stupid is to contemplate and threaten to strike if the police do not provide satisfactory answers. Why, one asks, should union members forego income over an issue unrelated to them or their families? Why should their employers suffer damage and loss of income because of the actions of the New Zealand Police—actions which are completely unrelated to shipping companies and transport company shareholders? Why damage the property of others?

The attitudes of the Maritime Union only serve to provoke additional doubts and questions. If they are so prepared to use the strike weapon to inflict damage on others, even their own members, for retaliation or “getting their own back” or making a point, or engaging in a political act; if they can so easily countenance theft or extortionant behaviour, then maybe there is some credence to the idea that they are involved in conspiracies to commit crimes and do damage to others. Maybe the Union is being run by radical anarchistic elements. Either that, or it is being run by people devoid of common sense, or of a modicum of decency, or by people who are amoral and lawless.

The Maritime Union: S-Award, Class II, for actions that have been Stupid, Short Sighted and Stupefied