Tagged: nonsensical sentencing trust

Nonsensical Sentencing Trust plays the Obi-Wan card

So, the Nonsensical Sentencing Trust wants to set up an anonymous website criticising the decisions of NZ judges, because any guilty verdict handed down to a poor brown person which doesn’t result in hanging is obviously too lenient.

Naturally, this has caused some consternation among the legal fraternity.

But don’t worry, folks, because the SST has now made it clear:  they do not support vigilantism.

For the sake of your braincells, you may choose to append the famous Jedi maxim, “from a certain point of view” after that sentence.

Because this is the same SST whose leader went on the record to defend a rich white dude who chased down and stabbed to death a 15-year-old for the iniquitous crime of tagging a fence.  What was it you said, Garth?

Emery had to “pay a price for what he did” but the 52-year-old was a “different type of offender”.

“I didn’t think he should have gone to jail,” said Mr McVicar.

“That young offender [Pihema] had been doing graffiti before and Emery had been becoming extremely frustrated with it.

But of course, let’s be sensible.  Clearly, Bruce Emery, who saw two young men tagging his fence, took out a knife, and chased them 300m down a road to confront and kill one of them was not a vigilante.

You have to be wearing a mask to be a vigilante.

But let’s credit the SST with this:  at least they’re straight-up, ethical types who never try to weasel out of previously-made statements which are now politically inconvenient.

“We have never supported or advocated vigilantism and we never will” said Ruth Money of Sensible Sentencing Trust this morning. “Garth McVicar has never said that, I have never said that, and no person speaking on behalf of Sensible Sentencing – as opposed to their own personal view – has ever said that” Ms Money said.


Marriage equality and polygamy

Another week, another homophobic crywank by Bob McCoskrie – wait, no, that’s Garth McVicar!  Saying marriage equality will lead to a gay crime wave!  This isn’t predictable and boring, this is fantastic!

Anyway, to continue: … another pointless, copy-pasted “but what about POLYGAMY?????” derail on probably every blog post covering the topic.

Coley Tangerina did a really good post on why marriage equality activists should stop (a) taking anything the bigot brigade takes seriously (b) instantly publishing denials of any intention to discuss polygamy ever.  I especially love this bit:

When activists fervently deny any support for poly marriage, they’re bringing it onto the agenda, when previously the only person doing that was a dude who ran a nationwide campaign in support of assaulting children.

I just want to add one thing, per my comment to whinging unoriginal manchild par excellence, kiwi_prometheus:

Sure, there’s a really interesting conversation to be had about family structure and alternative relationship styles, but the simple fact is this: you don’t give a fuck about alternative relationship structures. You’re exploiting them to derail the current moves towards marriage equality.

You want to derail this entire societal debate away from the simple fact that there are loving, committed same-sex couples in this world who deserve the same legal recognition as two hetero flatmates getting hitched for the student allowance benefits.

You’re only bringing up polygamy because your team’s previous arguments, i.e. “why can’t I marry my dog”, have been definitely laughed off stage.

That’s why I’m not answering your piece of shit “question”, k_p. Because I’m not playing your sad little homophobic game.

This “but what about THREE people getting married?  Huh?  HUH?”  derail is simply exploitative.  It’s exactly the same technique used by exactly the same crowd to derail conversations about violence against women – “but what about men who are victims of sexual violence?  Why don’t you care about them?”

It’s really not funny how, the minute White Ribbon Week or No Diet Day or Womensfest ends, those guys apparently forget all about how much men suffer from sexual violence or body image issues or whatever it was they were trying to get you to shut up about.

Seriously, folks.  We’re not dealing with a group of people who just sincerely believe that gay people cause hurricanes, and can be convinced otherwise with enough gentle discussion.

We’re not in a civilised little debate against opponents who just don’t understand how human rights work.

We are dealing with scary, controlling, unethical douchebags who will say literally anything if they think it has a chance of scaring the middle classes, the “ordinary Kiwis”, the people who aren’t necessarily anti- or pro-gay-marriage – just people without the time, energy, interest or inclination to be particularly political, and who might just believe Pillar of the Community Bobgarth McVicskrie if he swears very solemnly that un-cited research totally shows a correlation between gay people and weather patterns.

Don’t play their games.  And especially don’t crap on other people’s relationships to do it.

Via NRT: Rich man’s justice

What sort of sentence do you get if you run someone over in a fit of road-rage, causing serious and lasting injury? Community service, if you’re a banker. But even better, you get the judge weighing in on your side, minimising your offending, and haranguing the media for taking an interest in the case


As with comedians, it seems if you’re rich and white enough, the humiliation of being charged with a crime which you actually did commit is sufficient “punishment” for deliberately mowing down a human being with your car.

I’m sure if someone had just contacted the Sensible Sentencing Trust they’d have been more than happy to excuse the act on the basis of the terrible frustration he felt.

Anyway, he clearly felt threatened, because the man he ran down “might have been carrying a weapon”.  After all, he could clearly see the man was Asian, and they’re all ninjas, you know.

Here’s the thing:  this kind of attitude, displayed by our judiciary and even our most fervent hang-’em-high proponents, is fucking dangerous.  It’s like LudditeJourno said of the efforts in Whanganui to stop Stuart Murray Wilson being paroled there:

People of Whanganui – you already have rapists living there.  I’m sorry, but you do.  It’s just that they don’t look like our imaginary rapist, they are not quite “beastly” enough, they are “good, kind loving family men” and/or “pillars of the community.”

When we say, oh, the poor little rich man, he’s such a contributor to the community, he’s got a spotless record, he really showed remorse, honest he did – all we are doing is setting ourselves up to let murderers and rapists and child molesters walk free.

You think Graham Capill would have gotten away with abusing as many children as he did if people didn’t assume, why, he’s a religious ex-police prosecutor, that makes him A Good Man!  You think BTK would have killed 10 people before being caught (largely due to his own ego) if he weren’t a Good Church Man?  John Wayne Gacy was head of his local chamber of commerce!  And a kid’s birthday clown!

Seriously, people.  Use your brains, stop assuming that if someone joins the Rotary his behaviour must be above reproach.  Stop assuming that if someone from a privileged background has a “clean record” that means he’s never done anything bad before.  To quote the great Terry Pratchett:  “I’ve got ten years’ good conduct!”  “No, that’s ten years’ Not Found Out.”

Fun with cognitive dissonance and the Sensible Sentencing Trust!

Good parents who are just doing their best raising horrible children => get investigated for assaulting said children => no further action taken when Police/CYFS are satisfied no abuse taking place?


Random people who may or may not be sex offenders => names published in a sex offender registry accidentally => potentially face actual persecution in the form of mobs, harassment, being chased out of neighbourhoods?


Homework:  create a mind-map showing what qualities you think the Sensible Sentencing Trust assumes those two groups of people (“good parents” and “random not-actually-convicted-of-anything people who someone thinks is a sex offender”) have, and how to distinguish between them.

Bonus credit: present an internally-consistent explanation of how the Sensible Sentencing Trust can expect our Police and child protection services to crack down on abuse while simultaneously never investigating Good Parents.

Oh, well he’s funny, that makes up for sexually abusing a four-year-old

The sentence is in on the anon Kiwi comedian accused of sexually assaulting his partner’s daughter.

Oh, did I say sentence?  Because there isn’t one, because he’s just suffered so much already and we all need more laughter in our lives.

Basically, FUCK YOU, JUDGE CUNNINGHAM.  Officially Scum, that’s what you are.  You’ve even made me fucking agree with Garth McVicar and there’s no going back from that shit.

LudditeJourno has more.  Big trigger warning for child sexual abuse and abuse apologism.

Bonus fuck-you: to whatever tragic sick fuck at stuff.co.nz entitled the article “Talent helps comedian get off sex act charge”.  I realise y’all at Stuff are scum-sucking bottom-feeders desperate for pageviews, but you’re seriously going to Hell for that one.

Sweet, sweet law&order smackdown from Kim Workman

David Fraser, author of newly released book, ‘Badlands NZ: A Land Fit for Criminals’, who describes himself as an ‘international law and order expert’, is unknown within the criminal justice community, says Kim Workman, Director of Rethinking Crime and Punishment.


“In an interview with the NZ Herald (14 June 2008) , he acknowledges sending the manuscript for his first book to 60 publishers before it was finally accepted by Book Guild Publishing in Surrey. After reading it, I understood why. His lectures and debates disregarded the contemporary academic literature, and were bereft of logic.”

What’s that you say?  A Nonsensical Sentencing Trust diehard who’s basically just a thug obsessed with harsh punishment of criminals (where “criminals” is carefully defined so as to not include white businessmen who kill brown teenagers) but has no actual evidence to back this up as a practical, effective method of reducing crime?

I am shocked, Mr Workman.  Shocked.

A different, whiter, richer type of offender

Bruce Emery is to be released from prison after serving two years.

Which seems totally reasonable seeing as all he did was get a knife, chase down a teenager evil Satan-worshipping vandal, and stab him to death.

At least, the hang-’em-high-and-throw-away-the-key lobby thinks so.


Sensible Sentencing Trust head Garth McVicar – who usually backs the victims of crime – supported Emery’s early release.

He said Emery had to “pay a price for what he did” but the 52-year-old was a “different type of offender”.

“I didn’t think he should have gone to jail,” said Mr McVicar.

“That young offender [Pihema] had been doing graffiti before and Emery had been becoming extremely frustrated with it.

Extremely frustrated.

Let’s think about that for a minute, kiddies.

Garth McVicar –  who talks the big talk about victims living in fear and crimewaves crashing over the country in a suspiciously Polynesian-looking tsunami – sees no fucking problem with Bruce Emery walking the streets.

He takes no issue with letting a man, who cannot control his frustration, whose temper is on such a hair trigger that he stabbed a teen to death for tagging a fence, roam the streets of New Zealand.

Bruce Emery killed Pihema Cameron over a fucking fence.  He chased him down and killed him.  Over a fucking lick of paint.  And he has just been informed by our justice system and our biggest, most self-righteous crusader against crime, that what he did was not that bad.  That he was justified in killing a fifteen-year-old over a fucking tag.

Boy, I know I feel safer right now.

Minor breakouts of major gripes

I’d long ago realised that part of the reason I post cussy rants about things that seem like just small issues, not a huge deal, isn’t there something more important to worry about – is because those “small issues” just tap into much bigger problems.

Today, two such small issues reared their annoying heads.

The continuing saga of Oh Noes The Brown Man Said A Mean Word broke out on Red Alert, with Hon Trevor insert-duck-to-water-metaphor-here Mallard chipping in to the debate:

If a Pakeha used the term brown mofos it would be racist.  That standard should apply both ways.

Which actually hits several big Pisses Me Right The Fuck Off buttons.  But to summarise:  using the argument of “the same standard” is so close to “one law for all” they couldn’t legally marry in all 50 states of the US.  It’s “special rights”, it’s “level playing field”, and it’s bullshit.

There isn’t a fucking level playing field when one group of people has been historically shat on by another from orbit.  There isn’t a tabula rasa of race relations where such lovely “can’t we all just be equals and ignore skin colour and historical disenfranchisement and oh we tried to destroy your language and culture” ideas can be writ large.

There is a basic reason why a person of Maori descent can refer to “white motherfuckers stealing our land” which does not hold true for a person of European descent saying “brown motherfuckers stealing our car”.  That reason is privilege.  Learn you some.

Second small issue:  in the continuing if-they-wrote-this-for-TV-no-one-would-believe-it tale of Doug Schmuck and some possibly-dodgy legislative drafting, one quote nicely put its thumb directly on my White Middle Class Bastards Who Just Love Law And Order Until It Applies To Them button.

The 15-year fight for the Opua boat ramp had taken “a hell of a lot of time” and cost Mr Schmuck close to $200,000. “A few objectors can run the costs up so high that it makes things like the Resource Management Act untenable,” he said.

Ah, yes.  You can always spot a WMCBWJLL&OUIATT, by the way they seem completely oblivious of the fact that the law still counts even when it might stop them from doing something they want to do.

The classic example is provided every time there’s a Police crackdown on speeding, possibly by, oh the horrors, using hidden speed cameras.  Now, you might think “well if people don’t want to get speeding tickets they could try not speeding”, but such thoughts do not pass through the brains of White Middle-Class Bastards. No no no, this is just a revenue gathering exercise.

It’s not like their own speeding could cause accidents or cost people their lives or anything.  We all know that speed only kills when it’s those bloody Asian homestay students whose rich daddies send them thirty grand a month to buy Ferraris and meth with, obviously.  The laws of physics are very specific on this.

The other classic, of course, is the killing of Pihema Cameron – where the Your Sensible Is Not Like Our Earth Sensible Sentencing Trust decided that actually, that whole “tough punishment for violent crims is the way to save society” line didn’t so much count when the stabber was a rich white guy and the victim was [insert stereotype about Maori teenage boys here].

And so we have (oh Gods it makes me giggle every time) Doug Schmuck.  Who has been nearly bankrupted, dear readers, by busybodies and that bane of the WMCB, the Resource Management Act.  All because he built a private fucking boat ramp on a fucking public reserve.

It’s almost like some people expect Good Hardworking [White Male] Businessmen to obey the law or something.  Don’t they understand the law is for the little people?

Act MP: “We’ve got too hung up on people’s rights.”

Also covered at frogblog and The Standard: Act MP David Garrett, walking caricature of a conservative old white man living in the past century (nay, millennium) isn’t too concerned by multiple legal opinions saying his “three strikes and you’re out” law is, um, kinda in breach of basic human rights. You see,

“I’m actually more interested in a victim’s rights than a criminal’s rights. We are talking about the “rights” of someone who has served at least two sentences for violent offending and just been sentenced to a third lot.”

What’s that, you say? A member of the Nonsensical Sentencing Trust thinks criminals aren’t real human beings, and “victims” and “criminals” are two eternally-mutually-exclusive group, easily spotted by their respective halos and dark skin/propensity to wear leather/youth fiery wings?

This one doesn’t even required rant-space and obscenity. The man’s a living stereotype.

David Garrett dismissed a report by Attorney-General Chris Finlayson that found three strikes had an apparent inconsistency with the section of Bill of Rights protecting New Zealanders against cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe punishment.

Mr Garrett had not read the report, but told of its findings yesterday said: “So what?”

“Alter the Bill of Rights Act. We’ve got too hung up on people’s rights.”

Mr Garrett said the Attorney-General’s report focused on three strikes being punishment, when it was equally a protective measure.

“It is saying you have blown two chances; despite two warnings you have come out and done this behaviour again and we are not going to allow you to remain in the community to become a killer.”

Come on, he said  “So what?”, for Pete’s sake. If there were ever a universal rallying cry of pig-headed thugs who don’t want to be asked to actually think about things before doing them …

Seriously, Garth, can you HEAR yourself?

Bruce Emery, noted child-killer businessman has been sentenced for the manslaughter of young vandal Pihema Cameron, a child dope-fuelled tagging machine.

How much is the life of a brown kid worth these days? Four years, three months.

The starting point for sentencing was five and a half to six years jail because it was a homicide with the use of a knife, the judge said. But Emery received the benefit of mitigating factors, including his “family standing” in the community.

… So you can see that this post is going to get swear-y, right?

Continue reading