>He points out that despite only making up 16 per cent of the country’s entire population, Māori make up over 50 per cent of the prison population. It’s this culture of prejudice and division, he argues, that has allowed Mongrelism to thrive.
Oh no, I feel the need to be the ranting Pakeha. There's always bloody one ;(
Note that this doesn't state 'Maori commit over 50% of the nation's violent crimes', but instead walks right past that and talks about a mysterious prison population that somehow just came about. Maori commit crime at a disproportionate level to their population, they are incarcerated at a greater rate almost wholly due to this. This is occurring because of socioeconomic inequalities that need to be addressed and remedied on a cross-generational timespan. Starting with improved early childhood and educational outcomes and working outwards from there. Not starting with kids viewing gangs as an attractive life choice.
As a demographic, Maori are at a notable disadvantage. On an individual basis, every fuckwit locked up for violent crimes deserves to be there.
NZ does have proven bias in it's criminal justice system, but painting a picture of NZ culture as 'of prejudice and division' shows a lack of understanding and narrow lens. Article's got my back up because small-town NZ is terrorized by gangs and by romanticizing them, as I feel this article does, it lends a legitimacy to plain criminality that actively sets Maori at even further disadvantage.
The piece is capped off with this statement:
>Working with the Mob is a singular lens through which to look at the social dynamic of the country. It is also true that there are hugely positive things happening for Māori and Aotearoa New Zealand is at the global forefront of addressing the difficult inheritance of colonialism.
Can't help but feel placing that statement earlier, where more article readers will actually encounter it, would be less ass-covering and more honest journalism.
Thanks for this. I know nothing about NZ but you could replace just a few nouns to translate this to many other countries, sadly.
Not to pick on you, but I'd like to add that I think it's helpful to disentangle three things which often get rolled up together:
1. "commit over 50% of the nation's violent crimes" is a fact, today. The criminal justice system has to respond to each individual crime, for the usual mix of retribution / discouragement / removal. Every one of these violent crimes has a victim, on whose behalf we act. And very often the victims are similarly skewed towards some group -- such victims are no less deserving of our protection.
2. "is occurring because of" is a theory about past causes, which historians can argue about. There are many theories. But we don't need to wait for them to reach a consensus. It makes no difference to an individual's guilt or innocence of some crime.
3. "be addressed ... Starting with improved early childhood ..." is a theory about the future effects of policies we might adopt. This is also independent of the other things: a policy that improves outcomes for children of a crime-prone demographic isn't going to depend on whether #2 decides the group is of the oppressed-by-colonisers variety or the unassimilated-post-asylum variety. But whether it works or not is an empirical question, not a moral one.
"NZ does have proven bias in it's criminal justice system"
Exactly what part? Making sweeping statements like this is dangerous. Does racism exist? Yes. Point it out specifically and I'll fight it with you, but you had better point to specific cases otherwise you risk unfairly tarring people with the same brush.
Let me give you an example.
Years ago I was called up for jury duty. This was back in the days when juries needed to return a unanimous verdict.
I'm Pākehā the defendant was Māori... which made no difference to whatsoever to me. I took this man's fate seriously and carefully weighted the evidence presented.
However, deliberation was locked for two days as the two other jury members, who were both Māori, refused to return a not guilty verdict.
No matter what we did we could not convince those two other jury members and we were forced to return to the judge as a hung jury which required the defendant to remain incarcerated until a retrial.
We were told not to speak to anyone as we walked out of court and as we did, the defendant's family shouted abuse at jury members, including calling us, and that would include me, racist.
I remember feeling so upset over it, especially since I wanted to tell them that it wasn't me, the problem here was Māori being racist to Māori... it had nothing to do with Pākehā racism toward Māori!
So as someone who was temporarily part of criminal justice system, it isn't as simple as your sweeping statements indicates.
Isn't the point that they are societally disadvantaged through that institutionalised racism? And by being marginalised, pushed to a life where they are more prone to commit the violent crimes for which they are incarcerated? ("gangs")
I live literally on the other side of the world so maybe there is something else going on in NZ I don't know. But if it's anything like.. well, anywhere else, then I know the story pretty well: institutionalised discrimination -> social marginalisation -> gangs & crime -> overrepresentation in prisons -> people saying "oh my gosh look at them! they're all criminals!"
You can't accept bias etc and then make this statement "On an individual basis, every fuckwit locked up for violent crimes deserves to be there".
It makes no sense to accept institutional racism at a macro level, because it makes you feel good, then dismiss it as a contributing factor at a micro level. It's an incredibly disingenuous position - worse than all the pink-faced jerks ranting on about 'bloody murries..'.
They did in Australia. The unfortunate circumstance being the definition of a gang meant anyone affiliated or sharing colours that could be contributed to a 'group' when in the vicinity of one and other could be convicted.
Wether intended or coincidental (e.g. you go to the Pub wearing the colours of a Union or Football Club and by co-incidence, 2 others are in the same premise of the same affiliation. The definition of a gang is 3+ persons wearing 'affiliated colours'.
> I don't understand why governments don't just crack down hard on anyone affiliated with gangs.
The difficulty with this suggestion is defining a "gang" and defining cracking down "hard".
First there are moral questions... If a single person does something bad, would that implicate an otherwise peaceful gang? If a group has an aggressive self-image, but is never violent or breaks the law, should you crack down hard?
Second, there are practical issues: it's often difficult to find everyone that's part of a "gang". Also, because of their size and organization, they often have out-sized influence and likely have protection from within the system.
For starters, at least in the US, you would have to come up with a definition of gang that didn't also describe the behavior of most police forces here.
Is this a joke? How are you going to feel when your wrongly imprisoned for "gang affiliation" whatever that means. As a rule of thumb you shouldn't agree with any action being taken against people that you wouldn't agree to be taken against you.
> I don't understand why governments don't just [violate civil liberties].
Perhaps you should think a bit harder. Maybe do some reading? Maybe consider how you'd feel if your civil liberties were targeted.
> At least it wouldn't be a waste of tax payers dollars like governments are renown for doing
Sure. From the people that brought you such successes as the war on drugs, the war in Afghanistan, and the DMV. I mean, obviously a "war on people in an ill-defined category that aren't actually breaking any laws we know of" is going
to be super easy to execute. No doubt it'll go super well, with no wasted resources.
I'm so surprised to how this is downvoted and contrary to what I've experienced in life.
In the United States not so long ago in 2015, I had all my civil liberties ignored and when I was brought to a hospital against my civil rights by police in the state of Michigan. I was in a town with only one hospital and it being privately owned. The whole community being religious and with the hospital I later found out. The hospital had bibles in every room with a priest showing up weekly to help with our "sins" and pray the evil away. I would remove the bible from the room and it would be placed in my room against my wish every day.
Anyway, I was suffering gender dysphoria and being bullied by students at my university in association to me being different (transgender). An incident from hearsay of bullies turned into the police getting called. The officers sided with the bullies, without informing me about how I caused "a disturbance" and refused to listen to me. I was just doing my work in the computer science lab. There was only me and one of the bullies in the CS lab at the time. I argued with using my phone to record the police encounter but one officer went behind me and seized my phone so I couldn't record. I was handcuffed brought to the jail for a few minutes, while I voiced I'll be suing and then directly brought to the hospital while voicing how I wanted to stay to see a lawyer. Stayed in a hospital room for over 6 hours waiting for a nurse with two officers sitting outside the door. Nurse just listened to the officer and brought me to the psych ward.
I demanded to leave the next day but the "social worker" evaluator who works at the hospital wrote involuntary on my charts and without me even seeing a doctor for an evaluation. I later see a doctor with demanding to be let go and he wants me to be observed because the police report has hearsay against me. I tell him how I'm transgender, I would actually like to be on hormone replacement therapy if I'm stuck here and all of a sudden I was being labeled insane. They kept me there for 2 months until my insurance refused because I had turned 26 years old (was now off parents insurance) and they ended up billing $58,000.00 for the stay with them forcing antipsychotics upon me. Told by nurses & the doctor I need to take the medication or the judge will never side with me. I was assigned an ex-cop who is now a lawyer for "helping people" who are brought to the hospital for involuntary commitments.
So the lawyer I'm assigned never shows up to the hospital before my kangaroo court "trial" that was done over TV to the courtroom from the hospital and where my "lawyer" just went to the courtroom where the judge is behind a camera and with me being at the hospital talking through a videocamera next to a doctor & social worker who I'm extremely traumatized by. I Witness a judge side with the doctor and when I just voiced it was all a misunderstanding with my rights being violated. The lawyer said nothing. Before all this I called the patient advocate who works at the hospital "no surprise" who did nothing. I called numbers in the pamphlet the hospital gives you, nobody answered, I left voice mails and never received a call back. I said I wanted a second opinion or to be moved to another hospital as my legal right in the pamphlet states but was ignored.
Anyway I eventually get out and not one organization for legal aid for minorities or civil liberties violations in Michigan wanted to help me. Maybe because there is so much stigma in the US when it comes to mental illness or where I was located with being a poor university student. So long story short, nobody cares anymore about people having their civil liberties ignored and I'm surprised the person above is being downvoted. People don't care when it's already happening to people. Now in Canada pursuing medical assistance in dying because religion ruined my life while my illness is now acceptable for people to receive treatment young. Fuck everything /rant
[+] [-] FooHentai|7 years ago|reply
Oh no, I feel the need to be the ranting Pakeha. There's always bloody one ;(
Note that this doesn't state 'Maori commit over 50% of the nation's violent crimes', but instead walks right past that and talks about a mysterious prison population that somehow just came about. Maori commit crime at a disproportionate level to their population, they are incarcerated at a greater rate almost wholly due to this. This is occurring because of socioeconomic inequalities that need to be addressed and remedied on a cross-generational timespan. Starting with improved early childhood and educational outcomes and working outwards from there. Not starting with kids viewing gangs as an attractive life choice.
As a demographic, Maori are at a notable disadvantage. On an individual basis, every fuckwit locked up for violent crimes deserves to be there.
NZ does have proven bias in it's criminal justice system, but painting a picture of NZ culture as 'of prejudice and division' shows a lack of understanding and narrow lens. Article's got my back up because small-town NZ is terrorized by gangs and by romanticizing them, as I feel this article does, it lends a legitimacy to plain criminality that actively sets Maori at even further disadvantage.
The piece is capped off with this statement:
>Working with the Mob is a singular lens through which to look at the social dynamic of the country. It is also true that there are hugely positive things happening for Māori and Aotearoa New Zealand is at the global forefront of addressing the difficult inheritance of colonialism.
Can't help but feel placing that statement earlier, where more article readers will actually encounter it, would be less ass-covering and more honest journalism.
[+] [-] iguy|7 years ago|reply
Not to pick on you, but I'd like to add that I think it's helpful to disentangle three things which often get rolled up together:
1. "commit over 50% of the nation's violent crimes" is a fact, today. The criminal justice system has to respond to each individual crime, for the usual mix of retribution / discouragement / removal. Every one of these violent crimes has a victim, on whose behalf we act. And very often the victims are similarly skewed towards some group -- such victims are no less deserving of our protection.
2. "is occurring because of" is a theory about past causes, which historians can argue about. There are many theories. But we don't need to wait for them to reach a consensus. It makes no difference to an individual's guilt or innocence of some crime.
3. "be addressed ... Starting with improved early childhood ..." is a theory about the future effects of policies we might adopt. This is also independent of the other things: a policy that improves outcomes for children of a crime-prone demographic isn't going to depend on whether #2 decides the group is of the oppressed-by-colonisers variety or the unassimilated-post-asylum variety. But whether it works or not is an empirical question, not a moral one.
[+] [-] icu|7 years ago|reply
Exactly what part? Making sweeping statements like this is dangerous. Does racism exist? Yes. Point it out specifically and I'll fight it with you, but you had better point to specific cases otherwise you risk unfairly tarring people with the same brush.
Let me give you an example.
Years ago I was called up for jury duty. This was back in the days when juries needed to return a unanimous verdict.
I'm Pākehā the defendant was Māori... which made no difference to whatsoever to me. I took this man's fate seriously and carefully weighted the evidence presented.
However, deliberation was locked for two days as the two other jury members, who were both Māori, refused to return a not guilty verdict.
No matter what we did we could not convince those two other jury members and we were forced to return to the judge as a hung jury which required the defendant to remain incarcerated until a retrial.
We were told not to speak to anyone as we walked out of court and as we did, the defendant's family shouted abuse at jury members, including calling us, and that would include me, racist.
I remember feeling so upset over it, especially since I wanted to tell them that it wasn't me, the problem here was Māori being racist to Māori... it had nothing to do with Pākehā racism toward Māori!
So as someone who was temporarily part of criminal justice system, it isn't as simple as your sweeping statements indicates.
[+] [-] nothrabannosir|7 years ago|reply
I live literally on the other side of the world so maybe there is something else going on in NZ I don't know. But if it's anything like.. well, anywhere else, then I know the story pretty well: institutionalised discrimination -> social marginalisation -> gangs & crime -> overrepresentation in prisons -> people saying "oh my gosh look at them! they're all criminals!"
substitute for any race.
[+] [-] te_chris|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiderPig|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boznz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keithnz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imanaussietoo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazy_monkey|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lurker82|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] FuckOffNeemo|7 years ago|reply
Wether intended or coincidental (e.g. you go to the Pub wearing the colours of a Union or Football Club and by co-incidence, 2 others are in the same premise of the same affiliation. The definition of a gang is 3+ persons wearing 'affiliated colours'.
1) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/queensland-reworks-an...
2) https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/secret-report-re...
3) http://www.proctorlaw.com.au/law-blog/criminal-law/vlad-laws...
[+] [-] speedplane|7 years ago|reply
The difficulty with this suggestion is defining a "gang" and defining cracking down "hard".
First there are moral questions... If a single person does something bad, would that implicate an otherwise peaceful gang? If a group has an aggressive self-image, but is never violent or breaks the law, should you crack down hard?
Second, there are practical issues: it's often difficult to find everyone that's part of a "gang". Also, because of their size and organization, they often have out-sized influence and likely have protection from within the system.
[+] [-] avs733|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hasahmed|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lazare|7 years ago|reply
Perhaps you should think a bit harder. Maybe do some reading? Maybe consider how you'd feel if your civil liberties were targeted.
> At least it wouldn't be a waste of tax payers dollars like governments are renown for doing
Sure. From the people that brought you such successes as the war on drugs, the war in Afghanistan, and the DMV. I mean, obviously a "war on people in an ill-defined category that aren't actually breaking any laws we know of" is going to be super easy to execute. No doubt it'll go super well, with no wasted resources.
[+] [-] intralizee|7 years ago|reply
In the United States not so long ago in 2015, I had all my civil liberties ignored and when I was brought to a hospital against my civil rights by police in the state of Michigan. I was in a town with only one hospital and it being privately owned. The whole community being religious and with the hospital I later found out. The hospital had bibles in every room with a priest showing up weekly to help with our "sins" and pray the evil away. I would remove the bible from the room and it would be placed in my room against my wish every day.
Anyway, I was suffering gender dysphoria and being bullied by students at my university in association to me being different (transgender). An incident from hearsay of bullies turned into the police getting called. The officers sided with the bullies, without informing me about how I caused "a disturbance" and refused to listen to me. I was just doing my work in the computer science lab. There was only me and one of the bullies in the CS lab at the time. I argued with using my phone to record the police encounter but one officer went behind me and seized my phone so I couldn't record. I was handcuffed brought to the jail for a few minutes, while I voiced I'll be suing and then directly brought to the hospital while voicing how I wanted to stay to see a lawyer. Stayed in a hospital room for over 6 hours waiting for a nurse with two officers sitting outside the door. Nurse just listened to the officer and brought me to the psych ward.
I demanded to leave the next day but the "social worker" evaluator who works at the hospital wrote involuntary on my charts and without me even seeing a doctor for an evaluation. I later see a doctor with demanding to be let go and he wants me to be observed because the police report has hearsay against me. I tell him how I'm transgender, I would actually like to be on hormone replacement therapy if I'm stuck here and all of a sudden I was being labeled insane. They kept me there for 2 months until my insurance refused because I had turned 26 years old (was now off parents insurance) and they ended up billing $58,000.00 for the stay with them forcing antipsychotics upon me. Told by nurses & the doctor I need to take the medication or the judge will never side with me. I was assigned an ex-cop who is now a lawyer for "helping people" who are brought to the hospital for involuntary commitments.
So the lawyer I'm assigned never shows up to the hospital before my kangaroo court "trial" that was done over TV to the courtroom from the hospital and where my "lawyer" just went to the courtroom where the judge is behind a camera and with me being at the hospital talking through a videocamera next to a doctor & social worker who I'm extremely traumatized by. I Witness a judge side with the doctor and when I just voiced it was all a misunderstanding with my rights being violated. The lawyer said nothing. Before all this I called the patient advocate who works at the hospital "no surprise" who did nothing. I called numbers in the pamphlet the hospital gives you, nobody answered, I left voice mails and never received a call back. I said I wanted a second opinion or to be moved to another hospital as my legal right in the pamphlet states but was ignored.
Anyway I eventually get out and not one organization for legal aid for minorities or civil liberties violations in Michigan wanted to help me. Maybe because there is so much stigma in the US when it comes to mental illness or where I was located with being a poor university student. So long story short, nobody cares anymore about people having their civil liberties ignored and I'm surprised the person above is being downvoted. People don't care when it's already happening to people. Now in Canada pursuing medical assistance in dying because religion ruined my life while my illness is now acceptable for people to receive treatment young. Fuck everything /rant