Saturday, September 18, 2010

ZenTiger A Real Strike 1 offence

This is what David Garrett fought for. We aren't talking about a punch up in a nightclub where you defend yourself from a bully, and we aren't talking about forging a passport:
Matthew John McLennan, 18, admitted in Masterton District Court yesterday that he abducted a 14-year-old Carterton schoolgirl with the intention of sexual connection and attempted to abduct an 11-year-old girl.

He told police that when he saw the 14-year-old, he became aroused and wanted to take her to a quiet place for sex – so he grabbed her and forced her into his car. The girl screamed, repeatedly pleading with McLennan to let her go, but he refused to stop the car.

In desperation, the kidnapped girl leapt from the moving vehicle, tumbling on to the road. She broke her wrist, was left covered in bruises and needed seven stitches in her head.

McLennan also admitted that he attempted to abduct an 11-year-old girl in Carterton last April.
This is clearly a first strike offence, and the strike is well deserved. It indicates that he would again lapse into this behaviour and we can foresee the consequences. Indeed, merely leaving it that is inadequate and he needs serious treatment.

I can see no hypocrisy in Garrett taking a hard line on these more serious offences, which seems to be one of the main lines of criticism in the media. I would think though that there would have to be some degree of empathy for the possibility of rehabilitation in all but the worst repeat cases.

However, it seems the public in general don't believe in second chances on matters this grave. The baying for blood is loud, because a fair portion of it is generated by people more against the political views of the man than the crime.

However, the issue is not clear cut even on the partisan side of the fence, because politics is a realm that attempts to justify the irrational with rationalisations. Or perhaps that's human behaviour in general?

So I am not sure on the viability of Garrett remaining in the ACT Party at this stage - a two week break and reflection seems sensible, and it gives journalists the opportunity to reprint their Chris Carter story with a quick search-and-replace. If they are paid by the word, surely a bonus?

Which makes me wonder what happened to Chris Carter?

14 comment(s):

scrubone said...

So I am not sure on the viability of Garrett remaining in the ACT Party at this stage

He resigned the party - the question is his remaining an MP.

Redbaiter said...

"Which makes me wonder what happened to Chris Carter?"

Carter is a flagrant homosexual and a progressive and accordingly was treated with kid gloves by a NZ media who are made up of people who are much the same as Carter, and this is a fact that explains well enough the virulent hate and contempt displayed towards Garret compared to the benign "he's been a naughty boy" approach they displayed towards Carter.

The media in NZ are the leftist front that must be first assaulted and destroyed if we ever truly do want a restoration of real political dialogue, and not the present state of being where anything that confronts Progressive ideas is treated with contempt and derision.

Garret was always going to be crucified for what the left saw as his arrogant rejection of their world view. His defeat at the hands of the mainstream media who clearly hated him was only a matter of time.

ACT though deserve some of the blame through their failure to fight hard enough for their position, but that position is of course made more difficult to defend because ACT itself is infested with mini Chris Carters, Progressives who add nothing to the Party's message but confusion.

And again, they failed to fight the media, but instead chose to try and suck up to them. This is as wise as cuddling up to a twelve meter python.

Its sad that Garret has been defeated, and that ACT are probably gone too (the media's associated objective) but the reality is that they were never (due to their mixed message) any kind of real influence on NZ politics.

The only hope for this country is the Tea Partying of National, but this is NZ, not America, and NZ is a place where passionless people prefer to enthusiastically lick socialist jackboots rather than be pointed at by their neighbours. Its a hope far too faint to carry for too long.

homepaddock said...

The hypocrisy is because he took such a hardline on crime, (zero tolerance was the campiagn slogan) and was strongly against name suppression.

Almost everyone makes mistakes and most of those mistakes shouldn't stop people being MPs. But if they've done something seriously wrong they should be open about it before they enter parliament.

Stripe said...

That's not a first strike offence. What a joke! That's a hanging offence. Rapists and kidnappers should be left to dangle after a short drop.

They certainly would never think of doing it again!

Redbaiter said...

"The hypocrisy is because he took such a hardline on crime,"

You define this as hypocrisy you don't have a damn clue what the word means.

Have more rational readers ever reflected upon how the Progressive's greatest sin is to be guilty of hypocrisy, and they throw this allegation around with gay abandon and become apoplectic if they ever even come upon a hint of its commission?

And they enthusiastically deem Garret a hypocrite at the same time as they cry out for lenient prison sentences so that criminals can be rehabilitated and forgiven their past offences, and stand by in hand wringing self indulgence as this country sinks deeper and deeper into the pit of despair that they have dug, and all the time pointing their fingers and plaintively whining 'hypocrite' at the slightest sign that they might be observing this monumental transgression.

Garret cannot campaign against the torrent of violent crime that is swamping this country, and take his concerns to parliament, because 26 years ago he committed a crime that was so serious he was discharged without conviction. And while Garret stands naked before us exposed as the serial murderer (or hypocrite) he is in the eyes of NZ's gaggle of wet weak Danny Watson listening rubes, people who do not (as Garret did) challenge the progressive world view skulk in parliament without a skerrick of scrutiny from those self appointed protectors of morality and decency and who stand ever alert on the watch towers with eyes keenly peeled for any approaching HYPOCRISY..

Excuse me while I vomit. Man this country is so far down in the gutter I doubt its ever going to make its way back to civility. A country of whining disgusting jackals and leeches and cowards and surrender monkeys. Led by the nose by collection of phonies and progressives who have infiltrated the country's information systems and who can at the snap of their fingers, generate any mood they choose amongst an easy manipulated population of dimbuld navel gazing one cell amoebas.

Yeah- Garret was a HYPOCRITE, so draw and quarter him and hang his body parts high and then get on with destroying a great little country and let Garret's remnants stay in public view for ever just in case anyone else dares to think about challenging the Progressive status quo and therefore risks the label to end all labels in Progressive NZ- HYPOCRITE..!!!

You deserve everything that is about to befall you.

leftrightout said...

What a strange rant from redbaiter on a catholic/christian blog.

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

muerk said...

Redbaiter:

The issue is that Garrett hurt the parents of that little dead baby whose identity he stole and he forged an official document of our county. He did a terrible thing to those parents, he deeply hurt them by his actions. To Garrett's credit he takes full responsibility for his actions and has said so publically.

Garrett's lapse of judgement 26 years ago has consequences, as it should. He committed a crime and there must be justice. I hope the people whom he hurt can find it in their hearts to forgive him

Redbaiter said...

"The issue is that Garrett hurt the parents of that little dead baby"

God save us. This is the lame arsed excrement that justified the removal of a man struggling bravely to remove rapists and murderers off our streets, and justifed the killing off of ACT and the moving the center of the NZ political spectrum another ten degrees to the left. Man, if ever there was a group that needed their useless arses kicked very very hard into reality it is those pathetic mindless easily led lamers who go on about the "poor baby and its parents".

leftrightout said...

...it is those pathetic mindless easily led lamers who go on about the "poor baby and its parents".

Of course, because for a Hard Right Palinista, the end always justifies the means.

ZenTiger said...

You are not making sense with that comment.

KG said...

"Of course, because for a Hard Right Palinista, the end always justifies the means."

Is that the best retort you can come up with? As usual, you haven't addressed a single real issue raised by Redbaiter because your hatred of the right blinds you to facts.
Redbaiter has posted some cogent arguments here in comments and over at CR about what he views as the central problems affecting NZ, arguments which have drawn great, thoughtful responses.
Yet the best you can come up with is "Hard Right Palinista".
No wonder the very sight of your nick is retch-inducing.

Redbaiter said...

No wonder the very sight of your nick is retch-inducing.

His many nicks actually. LRO, MNIJ, and who knows how many more. He also frequently uses other posters nicks to post false messages, one of the most destructive and treacherous and cowardly acts anyone can commit in a medium such as the blogosphere. He's over on Kiwiblog today posturing about morality when he's totally amoral himself.

This is the left we fight. Why do people so easily forget what vile poisonous scum they are and what they are prepared to do in pursuit of the power that is their all consuming objective?

Why do they not see what and how much is lost if we let such evil win?

muerk said...

"...pathetic mindless easily led lamers who go on about the "poor baby and its parents"."

Your lack of empathy is strange given your clear message that we should rid our streets of rapists and murderers. I assume you want to get rid of criminals because of the pain they cause their victims? If this is so, how is it you are so callus about the vicitms of Garrett's crime?

I agree with Garrett's position that we should keep ciminals who keep re-offending away from society. I think it's madness to allow dangerous people out of prison. But you seem prepared to ignore Garrett's criminal offending because his message is important, ignoring the victims of his crime.

I find your attitude towards Garrett's victims horrible. In fact you have the same attitude towards his victims as the rapist and the murderer has towards theirs - complete callus indifference.

0..0 said...

As demonstarted here, the reason Garrett must retire from politics isn't the biggest issue. Many people cannot comprehend the legalities or reasoning required to examine the real criminal/cover-up issues that need answering. They can, however, easily embrace an emotional concept "the poor parents and child" without any thought or qualification. Garrett will go because of that and he should go because of that. He knew the game of NZ politics and he broke the rule: thou shall not offend those who only understand emotions. Hide too made an eror. He knew about Garrett and knew that what he had done would offend the perpetually offended. Masters of their own demise you could say. Progressives this and that has nothing to do with it because you need not pander to these people, just don't give them sudden shocks. It was sloppy political management - amateurish - and amateurs lose in politics.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.