It is encouraging that the totally unacceptable nature of this shooting-violence is at last attracting greater attention from Government, who have until now had an observably VERY soft attitude to Criminal Gang activities, although clearly Government have not yet come up with a meaningful, let alone an appropriate, strategy, to combat them.
However, WE MUST REMEMBER that as bad and as seriously threatening as gun-based gang violence is, their “business and primary income source” comes from the much more serious procurement, distribution of and highly profitable sale of illegal highly addictive drugs — all while knowingly and deliberately destroying many New Zealanders’ lives in the process. That is their UNDERPINNING business and (hugely profitable) livelihood.
Criminal Gangs are essentially “tribes”, reflecting and based on
the Maori tribal model. The difference is that their raison d’être is as “criminal
enterprises for profit”— i.e., they have a “CRIMINAL BUSINESS PURPOSE “
as their reason for being. Maori tribes do not.
We
New Zealanders do NOT want Criminal Gangs in our society and eradicating
/ eliminating these “CRIMINAL” gangs from our society is the only viable
solution. Anything less implies / acknowledges “a right to exist as a
CRIMINAL enterprise”, whose purpose is “the carrying out of criminal
activities as a business enterprise — for profit”.
Surely
NO government can sanction / accept such a “CRIMINAL business-purpose” as a
valid / justifiable “right to exist”.
Criminal
Gang membership and criminal activity (recently, particularly drive-by
shootings, no doubt associated with “ territorial rights” and / or “revenge-shootings”)
have continued to escalate to the serious risk and detriment of all New
Zealanders. Criminal Gangs unquestionably DOMINATE the procurement-for-supply, distribution,
and sale of illegal habit-forming drugs in our society — all for huge monetary
gain. Supplying illegal drugs is their underpinning “BUSINESS “ and source of
income. They also own / possess illegally, large quantities of illegal-guns,
and other intimidatory weapons, all used for criminal purposes including
intimidation, threats of violence, violence, revenge-shooting, murder, robbery,
burglary, raiding, etc. Further, they are involved in extortion by menace,
blackmail, car/ vehicle conversion and, in short, criminal activities of
pretty well every kind and description. In addition, Criminal Gangs are
constantly involved in civil disobedience of various kinds which, unlike
ordinary citizens, they more often than not get away with. Again, it is
stressed that Government must understand and accept that “containment” is NOT
a satisfactory strategy in combating these Criminal Gangs, because
“containment” implies “acceptance” of criminal enterprises in our society — it
implies a “right to exist” for the purpose for which they exist — namely, “the
exploiting / carrying out of criminal activity AS A BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE FOR PROFIT”. Surely Government cannot accept / condone this
“CRIMINAL PURPOSE” as constituting a valid, acceptable or justifiable “right
to exist”.
I am
charging Government that they have an indisputable responsibility to eliminate /
eradicate these Criminal Gangs from our society. We New Zealanders do not want
them in our society. An example has been set by the Western Australian
Government. Time NOW for our Government to put the legal framework in
place to do the same —and TO MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS — eradicate
Criminal Gangs from our society.
Hugh Perrett, a member of the New Zealand Business Hall of Fame, is the former managing director of Foodstuffs and founder of the Pak n' Save discount grocery chain.
11 comments:
Criminal gangs exist all over the world and I'm not aware of any country which has successfully eradicated them.
That's not to say you shouldn't try but you need a strategy that stands a chance of working.
I'm not sure we have that.
Disband the gangs and all their members go underground.
You may just have to accept that a very small number in society will never conform and then find ways to successfully manage them so that the harm they do is minimised.
Should we be tougher - absolutely. The NZ Police are a laughing stock when it comes to enforcing the law against gangs. And the gangs know it.
We are probably always going to have gangs. The problem now is that they are "glorified". Even given money by the government! This acceptance of gangs as " normal " members of society needs to stop. Criminals and their behaviour should not be normalized.
I feel extremely sorry for the businesses that are constantly being harassed and robbed by these gangs. Very little sympathy seems to be forthcoming from those in power. Pretty disgraceful really. New Zealanders as a whole would be behind the business owners I am sure even though it is never stated in the MSM.
This Govt have done a fine job of eradicating the use of responsible gun ownership as a result of one lunatic act. Would NZ ever see anything of that magnitude had the Govt not been instantly reactive? Prior to that guns were seldom a talking point: "Oh, they only use it for duck shooting season, sports & pest control." Through one foolish act now guns are an American style essential, that is (...so far) if you're a gang member; like snarling cats marking their territory after dark. Theirs only one person to blame in the foreseeable future when gun killings escalate it is Ardern with her virtue signalling. Gangs as we know it are well in a transitional phase to becoming terrorist organisations & influential here in NZ. We're already at that point. Schools are grooming/initiating grounds, prisons are recruitment sites. This is what's happened in the UK for quite a spell. And don't we just love being part of the British Empire?
You said it earlier in your piece. Modern gang culture reflects so utterly the insane ideology this labour government has been forcing on the population for the last 5 years.
Its a way of life idolized and sanctified.
There hardly going to be motivated to shut it down.
Some key facts are missing from this story:
1. NZ has the highest gang membership per capita of population, in the world. The numbers for NZ are probably double that of the country with the second highest gang membership per capita. Gang membership in NZ doubled in the last 5 years.
2. NZ has more gang members than members of the armed forces.
3. Maori make up three-quarters of NZ gang members.
4. A 2016 MSD report concluded that 9 out of every 10 gang members had received welfare assistance (costing half a billion up to 2014 – $132,000 per person).
Why does NZ permit the existence of gangs?
It gives me no comfort to say this but I believe the Police would be the loser in any serious confrontation with the gangs.
I can remember back to John Banks and Norm Kirk saying "we will deal to the gangs."
They didn't because they couldn't and nothing has changed.
Since then Governments have become weaker in their resolve and gangs have become stronger.
While the overwhelming Maori gang membership makes any attempts to "fix it" impossible.
The article says it all-their main income stream is hard drugs.This is quite solvable, do as Singapore does & execute the drug pushers dealers & couriers.
Not to do so is to condone their killing of Kiwis by peddling drugs to them.
By execute I mean quickly, not after twenty years of appeals.
Gang members on benefits. this should be a 'fit and proper person' benefit regime.
They are here until the people decide otherwise, not the government.
It will be unwise to ban particular groups; this hasn't worked elsewhere except by extreme repression and state violence. Also, the definition of a 'gang' and 'gang member' will be difficult. Would police target friends and relatives of gang members who happen to be visiting a gang member's house, or the wives and children of gang members who live there? If a gang patch is the identifying thing then gangs will soon hide those patches, go underground. Further, gangs don't tend to have mission statements for proof that their existence is to commit crime, and indeed that is not their only role. Gang-eradication laws will too easily be applied to target any groups disapproved of by any current government or police regime. China, Russia and other states already do that.
Short of a police state with Gestapo-type goons, police resources will always be insufficient to attend to all gang and non-gang matters. However, police time could be better prioritized so that more offending by gangs can be targeted. For example, the process for arms licences is cumbersome (and ineffective), involving interviews with an applicant's wife, partner and/or others essentially designed to give women the power over whether a man can legally have a gun. A background check on the applicant and use of a researched risk assessment tool would take less time and be more accurate. Also, the priority on 'family violence' sees huge police time used to attend simple non-violent arguments by ordinary people, called in often by women wanting to weaponize the law against partners. The high number of police 'safety orders' prove this because they are given out when no law has clearly enough been broken with which to charge someone. While such calls to police deserve to be taken seriously, many could be dealt with over the phone while dishonest allegations should be prosecuted to reduce the number of unnecessary call-outs.
Thinking about it, increasing respect, gratitude and civil rights for men would go a long way towards reducing gang membership.
There is no need, and it's counter-productive, to base laws on identity. Better to more effectively target illegal behaviour. At a local gang-related house cars frequently park on yellow lines on the wrong side of the road, over footpaths etc and those cars often lack current warrants and/or registration, yet I never see police attending to this. Cars come and go frequently and it's pretty obvious that illicit drugs are being sold there; it would only take a short surveillance to provide legal justification to search the property but I have never seen that done and the cars keep coming. They have noisy, violent parties resulting sometimes in broken bottles over the road and vandalism of neighbouring properties, but I have seldom seen police intervene to protect residents' peace and property. The gang-related house (officially occupied by gang-related women and very young children) is heavily subsidized by our taxes through a housing 'trust', but despite the garage being set up as a gang pad with garish regalia all over the walls, and despite repeated gang parties, trouble and complaints I have never seen the occupants evicted. Without a doubt, the occupants and most of the gang members who come there will be on benefits paid for by those same neighbours whose productive employment is frequently impaired through all-night sleep disruption caused by methamphetamine-fueled gang parties, shouting, fighting and stereo subwoofers. All of this stuff could be targeted. Even then, targeting gangs but not other people for such behaviour will result in a victimhood mentality by those gangs and will increase sympathy, support and membership for them.
As pointed out by criminologist Jarrod Gilbert, gangs will always exist although some will come and go. The most that can be expected is a balance between gang behaviour and public tolerance. This balance is understood and managed by police who will put more pressure on a gang that disrupts the balance, and by gang leaders who want to protect their own existence. The recent gang shootings are currently being targeted in just that way.
Effective control will be difficult. It will lead to increased maori prosecutions, convictions and jail occupancy, all of which Police have been instructed to minimise.Anything more than token monitoring will likely bring from the Waitangi Tribunal accusations of systematic racism, blame of colonisation, and propose a (generously funded) maori group to redirect gang members onto the path to helping force co governance.
A further complication is that Te Tiriti is interpreted to guarantee control by chiefs of their domains. Gang leaders and their tribes are very analogous to the situations of many of the chiefs who signed.
Post a Comment