25-02-2024, 04:11 PM
Which will make govt & the police look as if they're 'getting tough' on gangs - & it has to be said, that a large-ish group of gang members all wearing their insignia can definitely be daunting - but you have to wonder how long its going to take the gangs to come up with some sort of alternative.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/35019150...-crackdown
"Police would be given the power to issue dispersal notices, requiring gang members to immediately leave an area. They would then not be allowed to see each other for seven days.
Courts would be able to issue non-consorting orders, "which will stop specified gang offenders from associating or communicating with one another for up to three years", Goldsmith said.
"The law will also be changed to give greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor at sentencing, enabling courts to impose more severe punishments."
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/12/21/analy...ady-exist/
"We also need to ask whether the new anti-gang measures breach fundamental principles such as human rights.
These are part of New Zealand law, through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the common law. They also reflect international standards that New Zealand has agreed to respect.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes proclaiming gang affiliation. There is also the right to associate with others, and to assemble peacefully.
But all of these rights have to be balanced against other interests.
The Bill of Rights Act sums this up by allowing “reasonable limits” that “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
Essentially, legislation that restricts rights requires a legitimate purpose. This is usually easy to show. But it is also necessary to consider whether such restrictions work and do so in a way that is proportionate to the breach of rights.
We have an idea what the courts might say. For example, in Morse v Police, the Supreme Court decided burning the New Zealand flag during an Anzac Day parade to protest New Zealand involvement in Afghanistan was not offensive behaviour, because it did not go beyond what people should be expected to tolerate in a democracy.
And in Schubert v Wanganui District Council, the High Court decided the ban on gang patches in all public places in the district went too far; the evidence did not show that something more tailored would have been as effective."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/35019150...-crackdown
"Police would be given the power to issue dispersal notices, requiring gang members to immediately leave an area. They would then not be allowed to see each other for seven days.
Courts would be able to issue non-consorting orders, "which will stop specified gang offenders from associating or communicating with one another for up to three years", Goldsmith said.
"The law will also be changed to give greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor at sentencing, enabling courts to impose more severe punishments."
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/12/21/analy...ady-exist/
"We also need to ask whether the new anti-gang measures breach fundamental principles such as human rights.
These are part of New Zealand law, through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the common law. They also reflect international standards that New Zealand has agreed to respect.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes proclaiming gang affiliation. There is also the right to associate with others, and to assemble peacefully.
But all of these rights have to be balanced against other interests.
The Bill of Rights Act sums this up by allowing “reasonable limits” that “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
Essentially, legislation that restricts rights requires a legitimate purpose. This is usually easy to show. But it is also necessary to consider whether such restrictions work and do so in a way that is proportionate to the breach of rights.
We have an idea what the courts might say. For example, in Morse v Police, the Supreme Court decided burning the New Zealand flag during an Anzac Day parade to protest New Zealand involvement in Afghanistan was not offensive behaviour, because it did not go beyond what people should be expected to tolerate in a democracy.
And in Schubert v Wanganui District Council, the High Court decided the ban on gang patches in all public places in the district went too far; the evidence did not show that something more tailored would have been as effective."
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)
