Where the hell do they find people like this?

[Mikkel]

I am utterly shocked. Today on stuff I'm reading this article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3356661/Breath-test-police-attack-Three-charged

...and as unfortunate those events are and as much sympathy I have for the police officers in question, the really shocking bit is this:

Police Minister Judith Collins said she would consider a law change to better protect police officers, but rebuilding respect for the law should be the first step.

"What I've asked to find out is whether or not the law is being properly applied, that's one side of it. But actually we'd rather stop the attacks in the first place, and I think it's extremely important that we start to rebuild the respect and fear for the law that we expect," she told Radio New Zealand.

I mean, how can you possibly find a serious politician in the year 2010 in a allegedly democratic westernised country who publicly expresses desire for people to fear the law? Apparently the answer is to conduct a radio interview with Judith Collins, New Zealand's Police Minister.

No wonder people are loosing respect for the law if people with this kind of mentality are the ones to set the agenda. Fear and respect does not go hand in hand - it never has, and it never will. Either you respect something or you fear it - can't have both at the same time. Fear works fine, provided you are happy to oppress the population. Oppression doesn't really rhyme with democracy though.

What is needed is trust and respect for the law and it's related authorities - and they can not strong-arm or engineer a situation where that is the prevailing reality. The only way to achieve that is through reasonable and fair enforcement of rational laws, the primary purpose of which is to ensure the rights and freedoms of the population.

However, I don't give that many chances with idiots like Judith Collins running the show.

[yachtie10]

must admit I cringed when i saw her say Fear rather than respect and I hope it was just a bad choice of words.

I think the police do a tough job and most do the best they can (probably better than I could after a few years of being treated like shit by some of the public)

Problem is some people hate the police for no rational reason and I don't know how you fix that.

I have friends who say I hate the pigs because someone they know, felt they were hard done by in situation with the cops. That is just BS

I know where my first call is going to when something serious happens to me. I just hope there going to help me if I need it and not all be out revenue collecting

[mashman]

What is needed is trust and respect for the law and it's related authorities - and they can not strong-arm or engineer a situation where that is the prevailing reality. The only way to achieve that is through reasonable and fair enforcement of rational laws, the primary purpose of which is to ensure the rights and freedoms of the population.

However, I don't give that many chances with idiots like Judith Collins running the show.

If politicians were really serious about trying to stem these types of incidents (sorry, just hypothesising), there would be a X (more than 1) year minimum sentence for "mob" related assaults... even those just watching should be charged with being accomplices (and potentially be charged with the same crime, carrying the same punishment)...

If she wants the law to be feared, up the sentences, bring back some of the REAL punishments... public floggings, hangings, dismemberment etc... something that would actually drive some fear into criminals (because they don't have respect)...

[Mikkel]

must admit I cringed when i saw her say Fear rather than respect and I hope it was just a bad choice of words.

I think the police do a tough job and most do the best they can (probably better than I could after a few years of being treated like shit by some of the public)

Problem is some people hate the police for no rational reason and I don't know how you fix that.

I have friends who say I hate the pigs because someone they know, felt they were hard done by in situation with the cops. That is just BS

It wouldn't take more than one occasion of being let down by the police - irregardless of circumstances - for an individual to loose faith in the entire law enforcement community.

Some people think that their own shit doesn't smell though and fail to realise that an officer is just another human being and that you can provoke them. I know plenty of decent people who have a high dislike for anyone related to the police - but who most definitely, according to their own tales, have enjoyed provoking the police in the past. What came first, provocation or misconduct from the police - I don't know, but I'm not doubting that there is a connection somewhere. However, that mentality is too ingrained in these people to be easily changed. The trick to avoid that is to prevent it from occurring at all - i.e. fair and reasonable law enforcement.

So far I have no real reasons to distrust the police - I've never experienced misconduct in person. I've witnessed unprofessional conduct on one occasion - but my mate who was copping the flak had provoked them first, that doesn't excuse the police officers in question because they were indeed out of line but it does make it understandable.

I am certain that there are bad seeds in the police, but I am also fairly confident that they do not constitute a large fraction of the police force than they do the general population.


If politicians were really serious about trying to stem these types of incidents (sorry, just hypothesising), there would be a X (more than 1) year minimum sentence for "mob" related assaults... even those just watching should be charged with being accomplices (and potentially be charged with the same crime, carrying the same punishment)...

If she wants the law to be feared, up the sentences, bring back some of the REAL punishments... public floggings, hangings, dismemberment etc... something that would actually drive some fear into criminals (because they don't have respect)...

It would appear that you missed the point entirely.

[Winston001]

Mmmm.....fair comment Mikkel. I suspect Judith Collins may wish she hadn't uttered both words in the same sentence but she's a human being and fallible. Live interviews are tough - you can't unsay something. I should also say that Judith Collins is a very experienced and respected barrister which you don't become if you are stupid.

Still, I don't have a problem with what she said. Respect for the law and those who enforce it is a primary foundation of a functioning society. The antithesis is anarchy where everyone does their own thing.

Fear of the law applies to anyone who is tempted to break it. It is fear of the consequences, not the law itself. Over and above that, there are people who specifically reject certain laws - eg. marijuana. They are otherwise law-abiding except on this one specific issue. So, the person doesn't respect that particular law - but fears it's consequences. Arrests, fines, prison, sodomy, eternal damnation......you get the idea. :D

[mashman]

It would appear that you missed the point entirely.

Guess i better start work on those mind reading skills. I happen to disagree with "The only way to achieve that is through reasonable and fair enforcement of rational laws"... primarily as there are those that will see "rational laws" and kick back because the laws have been created by The Man... it's got nothing to do with logic and that the laws are there for everyones protection...

[BiK3RChiK]

Problem is some people hate the police for no rational reason and I don't know how you fix that.

I have friends who say I hate the pigs because someone they know, felt they were hard done by in situation with the cops. That is just BS

I know where my first call is going to when something serious happens to me. I just hope there going to help me if I need it and not all be out revenue collecting
I'm sorry but I LOL'd! My first port of call has been the police on a number of occasions, and quite frankly, it has done jack diddly squat! It would have been better for me to take the law into my own hands and dish out the deserving punishment.

Then there is the time my top achieving son got done over by the Police for a minor offense that was blown out of all proportion, because they have a model for teenagers that says all boys in cars are boi-racers and must be punished to the maximum degree.

I can see how people lose respect for the police.

All the best getting justice when the crap rains down...... somehow, I doubt you will though!

[Pascal]

Fear of the law applies to anyone who is tempted to break it. It is fear of the consequences, not the law itself.

This is what I was thinking as well. That whole consequences thing which criminals (and those contemplating a crime) needs to be aware of.

[Mikkel]

Mmmm.....fair comment Mikkel. I suspect Judith Collins may wish she hadn't uttered both words in the same sentence but she's a human being and fallible. Live interviews are tough - you can't unsay something. I should also say that Judith Collins is a very experienced and respected barrister which you don't become if you are stupid.

I never said she was stupid. I am just saying that any politician who believe that fear of the law is desirable does not belong in a modern democracy. Plenty of very skilled people out there who haven't got their heart in the right place - those are not the people who should be running the country.


Still, I don't have a problem with what she said. Respect for the law and those who enforce it is a primary foundation of a functioning society. The antithesis is anarchy where everyone does their own thing.

Fear of the law applies to anyone who is tempted to break it. It is fear of the consequences, not the law itself. Over and above that, there are people who specifically reject certain laws - eg. marijuana. They are otherwise law-abiding except on this one specific issue. So, the person doesn't respect that particular law - but fears it's consequences. Arrests, fines, prison, sodomy, eternal damnation......you get the idea. :D

Well, call me an idealist, but I think it would be better to strive for a society where people interact respectfully of each other without the driving factor being bloody punishment for any misdemeanour. I am not saying that it is achievable here and now - but it is what we should strive for, and we should be going forward instead of backward in that regard. Anarchy is not a problem in a society constituted by moral, responsible, socially conscious individuals.

As for drug laws, more and more people are beginning to realise that the prohibition mentality - which belongs in the same class of short-sighted narrow-mindedness as "fear of the law" - isn't working and in fact is causing more damage than no legislation at all.

[CookMySock]

how can you possibly find a serious politician in the year 2010 in a allegedly democratic westernised country who publicly expresses desire for people to fear the law? [...] What is needed is trust and respect for the law and it's related authorities - and they can not strong-arm or engineer a situation where that is the prevailing reality. The only way to achieve that is through reasonable and fair enforcement of rational laws, the primary purpose of which is to ensure the rights and freedoms of the population.I think that is what many of the "anti-pigs" people on KB have been trying to say.

We are not "against the police", but if they want respect (I agree they should be respected) they need to clean up their shit, and throw people out who have the wrong attitude.

What about a "thumbs down" campaign? We aren't allowed to give cops the finger(s) but quite likely it is perfectly legal to give them the classic roman "thumbs down" show of disapproval. It is not any show of disrespect, hatred, anger, or any rude gesture, but a clear sign that we do not approve of policing that would bring disrespect on their own ranks, and cause the public to lose faith in the very mechanism that was intended to protect them.

Steve

[Toaster]

Yep DB, a bad apple always spoils the rest of the good fruit.

[Pascal]

Well, call me an idealist, but I think it would be better to strive for a society where people interact respectfully of each other without the driving factor being bloody punishment for any misdemeanour. I am not saying that it is achievable here and now - but it is what we should strive for, and we should be going forward instead of backward in that regard. Anarchy is not a problem in a society constituted by moral, responsible, socially conscious individuals.

How do you intend to get there? It seems to me that the more we liberalise our social conscience, the fewer people have respect for those very threads that bind them to a society, instead focussing only on themselves.

[NinjaNanna]

You are being pedantic. If you wish to be so pedantic, she said, "rebuild the respect and fear for the law " note she said law, not law enforcement officers.

Quite simply - the law adbiding will obey the law out of respect for what it is meant to achieve.

The criminals - don't and never will respect the law so they must fear its consequences.



Society cannot and never will be able to operate on the carrot only, the stick will always be needed as well - sadly we seem hell bent on proving this wrong, much to our own peril.

[T.W.R]

Still, I don't have a problem with what she said. Respect for the law and those who enforce it is a primary foundation of a functioning society. The antithesis is anarchy where everyone does their own thing.

Fear of the law applies to anyone who is tempted to break it. It is fear of the consequences, not the law itself. Over and above that, there are people who specifically reject certain laws - eg. marijuana. They are otherwise law-abiding except on this one specific issue. So, the person doesn't respect that particular law - but fears it's consequences. Arrests, fines, prison, sodomy, eternal damnation......you get the idea. :D

Exactly :yes:

And it's just over 53yrs to the day that the last person in NZ was hung.....Walter Bolton 18/2/57
Shame they weren't still getting rid of a few :ar15:

[Mikkel]

How do you intend to get there? It seems to me that the more we liberalise our social conscience, the fewer people have respect for those very threads that bind them to a society, instead focussing only on themselves.

My personal hypothesis is that the lack of respect and regard for other people arise from something different than what we are discussing here. That is caused by a shift in values towards materialism combined with the fact that we are well enough off that we do not feel that we need other people in order to prosper. I.e. independence is being substituted with indifference towards your fellow citizens.

I am a bit uncertain of what you mean by "liberalise our social conscience" though. Liberalism does not preclude socialism - liberalism merely seek to minimise the control exercised over the individual by the state. Socialism works on the principle that the prosperity of society depends upon all of society's parts - i.e. individuals - and that the best way to prosper is to give every individual a reasonable chance at succeeding within the society. Hopefully a liberalisation of our social conscience should, if anything, allow us to realise that we are all better off if we look after each other.


You are being pedantic. If you wish to be so pedantic, she said, "rebuild the respect and fear for the law " note she said law, not law enforcement officers.

I'm not at all sure what your point is with that. You do understand that fear is the important word in this regard, right? I doesn't matter if she said one or the other - what matters is that she presented fear as a desirable relation to authority.


Quite simply - the law adbiding will obey the law out of respect for what it is meant to achieve.

The criminals - don't and never will respect the law so they must fear its consequences.

So what would you call a person who have no respect for certain aspects of the law, but who have a very large respect for what it is meant to achieve?

Those who blindly obey the law because it is the law without questioning its merits are nothing but sheep.
Those who cause damage or loss onto others - wilfully or through carelessness - are worthless individuals, irregardless of whether they break the law in the progress.
Those who consciously break the law, without causing damage or loss onto others, are not criminals.

As I say, there is no such thing as victim-less crime. By that I don't mean that all transgressions of the law has a victim - rather I mean, that if there is no victim, then no crime has been committed.

[Pascal]

I am a bit uncertain of what you mean by "liberalise our social conscience" though. Liberalism does not preclude socialism - liberalism merely seek to minimise the control exercised over the individual by the state. Socialism works on the principle that the prosperity of society depends upon all of society's parts - i.e. individuals - and that the best way to prosper is to give every individual a reasonable chance at succeeding within the society. Hopefully a liberalisation of our social conscience should, if anything, allow us to realise that we are all better off if we look after each other.

It is likely bad terminology from my side (English is a second language). The concept I was striving for was the increase in self, perception of individual rights, wealth, etc. without the commensurate increase in responsibility associated with that. To my mind the self importance of the individual has led to a disassociation with the sense of community.

It seems to me as if life in a more conservative, less liberal society had closer ties within the community as people had a common frame of reference and a common moral standard. Whilst in a more liberal social setting individual beliefs leads to a fractured frame of reference as people focus on their rights and/or views without so much thought for that common moral standard.

But, I've got only my own life experience to draw on and part of that is from the flawed perspectives of an old, conservative South African now seeing a world through an open, progressive New Zealand perspective.

[CookMySock]

if there is no victim, then no crime has been committed.That is a grand statement to make, but you will fall foul of the insecure who will suggest that every second statement you make, or action you take, is designed to take away their rights.

But oh what a Utopia, where those who mean no harm and take great care with others' property and feelings may act freely without consequence. I cannot see it happening.

Steve

[gatch]

I think criminals fearing the consequences of being a cunt towards others would be fantastic.

"I could knick that guys ferrari, but they'll cut off hands if I get caught" etc..

I don't give a rats ass if it's inappropriate or not pc for people to fear the law, people who aren't cunts to each other wouldn't have a problem eh..

Irregardless of all the above, the ideal would be something like this.. Never going to happen, but still a nice idea..

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[scissorhands]

The end of our age age is upon us anyway.

We have a health system where peoples health is deteriorating

a justice system with little justice

an education system where dumbing down is the norm, kids were brighter 10 years ago

will take a bit to pull us out of this hole

4 generations of poor eating habits, is where I would start....

[Trouser]

I don't give a rats ass if it's inappropriate or not pc for people to fear the law, people who aren't cunts to each other wouldn't have a problem eh.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/

The main problem is people living in fear of the law who have done nothing wrong. Called systemic oppression. Next step GESTAPO. Being ratted out by your neighbor for saying Herr Key is doing a poor job.

[mashman]

I think criminals fearing the consequences of being a cunt towards others would be fantastic.

"I could knick that guys ferrari, but they'll cut off hands if I get caught" etc..

I don't give a rats ass if it's inappropriate or not pc for people to fear the law, people who aren't cunts to each other wouldn't have a problem eh..

Irregardless of all the above, the ideal would be something like this.. Never going to happen, but still a nice idea..

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

A Resource-Based Economy... dunno why everyone seems to think it's so unobtainable... it's just a simple shift in thinking... and would cure one hell of a lot of problems...

[Mikkel]

The end of our age age is upon us anyway.

We have a health system where peoples health is deteriorating

a justice system with little justice

an education system where dumbing down is the norm, kids were brighter 10 years ago

will take a bit to pull us out of this hole

4 generations of poor eating habits, is where I would start....

I'm not quite that pessimistic, all in all we are very well off indeed - even if some things are starting to slip we are - materialistically - better off than we have ever been. But we do need leaders who are visionary and inspiring. Someone who can introduce a trend of rising expectations instead of populistic politicians who have an event horizon of 3 years and who get elected by appealing to the lowest common denominator and playing on people's fears. Politicians who don't marginalise minorities or strive for short-term returns at the cost of long-term sustainability.

We really need people to start being honest - and by that I specifically mean being willing to gaze inward and address their own shortcomings, that and being willing to call a problem a problem instead of wrapping it all up in a nice tidy package of politically correctness.

[meteor]

Mikkel... Hear what you're saying but I think you've put too much emphasis on the word fear and taken it out of context.. Judith Collins quote of "respect and fear of the law" I take to mean respect of the laws of the land and fear of the consequences for breaking them. At the moment, neither is the case.

Unfortunately the Y generation has been brought up being told all about their rights as individuals and not taught that their 'rights' come with responsibilities and consequences. The rights of the individual should not outweigh the rights of society and if the individual acts against societies rules... then fuck him... off to jail he goes (and I mean jail not a country club).

My other bitch is parents who forget they have a responsibility to raise children and not to be their kids best friends. Support the kids but don't pander to them and if the little darlings are in the wrong... fucken do something about it... support what is right, at school, on the field, in their relationships, with the law... whatever. Teach them to fit in and contribute to the society that grants them all their rights and protections.

My 2 cents.

[gatch]

A Resource-Based Economy... dunno why everyone seems to think it's so unobtainable... it's just a simple shift in thinking... and would cure one hell of a lot of problems...

It definitely would be a better place.. Being able to have stuff based on whether the technology is available or not, rather than whether you can afford the exorbitant prices that the powerful can command..

But because it means asking everyone in the world to give up their religion and their money, it's like pissing right into a hurricane..

Shit, they can have both of mine..

[Mikkel]

Mikkel... Hear what you're saying but I think you've put too much emphasis on the word fear and taken it out of context.. Judith Collins quote of "respect and fear of the law" I take to mean respect of the laws of the land and fear of the consequences for breaking them. At the moment, neither is the case.

Well, if that is the case then she should learn to express herself more clearly. Still, anyone who want fear to play a role in regards to law does not belong in a democrazy. We ought to be very vary indeed of anyone who wants to make the population fearful - irregardless of the circumstance. Have a look overseas and consider what culling of civil rights and privacy has been introduced by blinding people with fear - it is a slippery slope and you need to speak up against that trend whenever you encounter it.


Unfortunately the Y generation has been brought up being told all about their rights as individuals and not taught that their 'rights' come with responsibilities and consequences. The rights of the individual should not outweigh the rights of society and if the individual acts against societies rules... then fuck him... off to jail he goes (and I mean jail not a country club).

I agree and I disagree. I agree insofar that people need to understand that the world doesn't revolve around them - but I disagree insofar to your attitude of punishment. The deprivation of freedom, or any other judicial penalty, should only be incurred when breaking a law that makes sense - at the moment some aspects of the law are hopelessly behind the times. Treating the general population as being idiots will either incur a violent reaction or slowly but surely turn the general population into idiots - it can not be any other way.


My other bitch is parents who forget they have a responsibility to raise children and not to be their kids best friends. Support the kids but don't pander to them and if the little darlings are in the wrong... fucken do something about it... support what is right, at school, on the field, in their relationships, with the law... whatever. Teach them to fit in and contribute to the society that grants them all their rights and protections.

Well, then you should also have a bitch with people who pander their friends and doesn't tell them to sort their shit out when they are in the wrong - because that stuff happens as well.

But other than that, I agree whole-heartedly. These days some kids are almost like a hobby for their parents - i.e. all fun and no consequence.


My 2 cents.

I doubt that, these days 2 cents equals 0 cents - that was worth more than 0 cents ;)

[mashman]

It definitely would be a better place.. Being able to have stuff based on whether the technology is available or not, rather than whether you can afford the exorbitant prices that the powerful can command..

But because it means asking everyone in the world to give up their religion and their money, it's like pissing right into a hurricane..

Shit, they can have both of mine..

Resource management at it's best to be its best, right person, right job, self-policing society... mmmmmmaybe... I reckon the number crunchers and politicians would welcome the break to be honest.

[Pascal]

I agree and I disagree. I agree insofar that people need to understand that the world doesn't revolve around them - but I disagree insofar to your attitude of punishment. The deprivation of freedom, or any other judicial penalty, should only be incurred when breaking a law that makes sense - at the moment some aspects of the law are hopelessly behind the times. Treating the general population as being idiots will either incur a violent reaction or slowly but surely turn the general population into idiots - it can not be any other way.

Examples?

/10 chars

[NinjaNanna]

We really need people to start being honest - and by that I specifically mean being willing to gaze inward and address their own shortcomings, that and being willing to call a problem a problem instead of wrapping it all up in a nice tidy package of politically correctness.

And yet here you are starting a thread deploring Judith Collins for doing just that. All because you took exception to her use of the word, fear. Which I might add - I and others here believe you to have taken out of context.

Perhaps if our politicians didn't spend their whole term in office being second guessed and religously trying not to be misunderstood then perhaps they could actually do some good.

[NinjaNanna]

My personal hypothesis is that the lack of respect and regard for other people arise from something different than what we are discussing here. That is caused by a shift in values towards materialism combined with the fact that we are well enough off that we do not feel that we need other people in order to prosper. I.e. independence is being substituted with indifference towards your fellow citizens.

Whilst I disagree with you on the use of the word fear - in my view the above is true wisdom

[Mikkel]

And yet here you are starting a thread deploring Judith Collins for doing just that. All because you took exception to her use of the word, fear. Which I might add - I and others here believe you to have taken out of context.

Doing just what? Do we really need the minister of police to tell us that it is a problem that three officers were committed to hospital due to violence? See, if we need to be told that - then we have already become idiots and there won't be much we can do about it. When I say willingness to address problems, then I am referring not to obvious problems, but the problems which we'd rather pretend does not exist because facing up to them makes us uncomfortable.

Anyway, she may have chosen her words badly or she may have meant them as she spoke them - we shall never know for sure. You have got to wonder if it wasn't a crack in the varnish showing a bit of true colour - you can not afford not to wonder.
But, blunder or not, it is important to sit up and take notice when your publicly elected politicians start using words like fear in that context. It is also important to speak up and point out that it is unacceptable.

Oh, and as we have established before in the scottish thread - what you (and other here :rolleyes:) may believe is of no significant consequence. The word fear was clearly used in the context "I think it's extremely important that we start to rebuild the respect and fear for the law that we expect" - if we can trust whoever the unnamed journalist who wrote the article and his/her sources. I know you can read, but I have a nagging feeling that you didn't quite get what she said - therefore I have high-lighted the words I consider significant in bold letters. If you still fail to grasp the context, let me know and I shall be happy to break it down for you.

[avgas]

Meh politics here has never been good. Never will be either.
Best just to scrap it all and start again I say.
But then you all voted.

[mashman]

Meh politics here has never been good. Never will be either.
Best just to scrap it all and start again I say.
But then you all voted.

I didn't... I held my own pole with a furry ballot box that day instead... If ya know what I mean?

[oldrider]

Mmmm.....fair comment Mikkel. I suspect Judith Collins may wish she hadn't uttered both words in the same sentence but she's a human being and fallible. Live interviews are tough - you can't unsay something. I should also say that Judith Collins is a very experienced and respected barrister which you don't become if you are stupid.

Still, I don't have a problem with what she said. Respect for the law and those who enforce it is a primary foundation of a functioning society. The antithesis is anarchy where everyone does their own thing.

Fear of the law applies to anyone who is tempted to break it. It is fear of the consequences, not the law itself. Over and above that, there are people who specifically reject certain laws - eg. marijuana. They are otherwise law-abiding except on this one specific issue. So, the person doesn't respect that particular law - but fears it's consequences. Arrests, fines, prison, sodomy, eternal damnation......you get the idea. :D

Respect can only be earned, you cannot command it and the only thing to fear about fear, is fear it's self! :shifty:

Authority is lost in this country because lawbreakers are seen to be rewarded while law abider's are seen to be punished and consequence is a word without meaning!

Yep, that about sums New Zealand society up in a nutshell. :yes: