Last Sunday if you read Deborah Coddington’s column in the Herald on Sunday you’ll know part of a story about a man who caught a would-be burglar and called the police to come and collect him. This Sunday evening, if you watch TV One’s Sunday program you’ll get an update.

Deborah told about Michael Vaimauga a 24-year-old father of four who works as a dispatcher and lives next to the Guthrie Bowron store in Panmure. “Vaimauga woke at 4.30am last February to the sound of three guys smashing their way into the store. Did our hero go back to bed, ignore a crime taking place under his nose, and bury his head under the pillow muttering ‘not my problem’? No. He phoned the police, grabbed his baseball bat and shouted at the would-be thieves to stop. When they took off, he chased one, whereupon he was attacked. Vaimauga responded in kind with his baseball bat and felled the attacker with a blow to the shin. He then dragged him down the road to the service station and waited for the police”.

The police duly arrived, talked to both men, then arrested Vaimauga for assault and sent the other guy to hospital. After losing time off work for at least five court appearances this young man with no previous convictions was discharged without conviction, but the judge ordered him to pay $150 to a charity. She told him he must not take the law into his own hands. The would be burglar was never charged.

The man should have got a medal. His legal aid lawyer was paid $910. With four kids the days off work hit Michael and his family hard. I’ve sent him my own practical medal – a small contribution toward the costs of those days off work.

Do watch the programme on Sunday. If you too think Michael needs such a medal send me a cheque made out to him, and I’ll ensure he gets them. Letters can be addressed to me without postage at Parliament Buildings, Wellington.

The TV programme will reveal a lot about the attitudes of the police, and judges – the insiders of our criminal justice system. But there is a lot TV won’t have time to include.

As soon as I heard about the case I sought access to the court file. That was over a month ago and still I have not seen it.

I’ve explained to the court that I do not like to propose changes to the law, or criticise decisions, without knowing as much as I can find out. I got Vaimauga’s consent to disclosure, and the court now has it in writing.

First, a court clerk referred my request to the Minister for Courts for vetting. I went to the court office. I’ve now heard from the Chief District Court Judge, Judge Mathers, and the Minister, that the court clerk was mistaken in telling me there was a protocol requiring such referral, and that the decision is for the judge alone. I have not heard what they are going to do to shore up understanding in the Registrar’s office of the concept of judicial independence from the Executive.

I suspect that this is another case where the justice system has stolen a precious right from the man charged. The judge told Michael that he should not take the law into his own hands.

But the law was already in his hands, and in our hands, and it always has been. It does not belong the system insiders – the judges, police and the lawyers. The Crimes Act is clear about citizen’s arrest immunities. Judicial carping at people who take the law into their own hands is now common but that does not make it lawful. The justice insiders may think that citizens arrest provisions are old-fashioned. They may want to confine enforcement decisions and powers exclusively to themselves, but sections 35 to 39 of the Crimes Act have not been repealed. Punishing people who uphold the law is stealing rights from us all. Do you find the following obscure?

“35 Arrest of persons found committing certain crimes. Every one is justified and arresting without warrant any person whom he finds by night committing any offence against this Act.

‘39 Force used in executing process or in arrest. Where any person is justified or protected from criminal responsibility … in making… any arrest, that justification or protection shall extend and apply to the use by him of such force as may be necessary to overcome any force used in resisting such execution or arrest, unless the… arrest made by reasonable means in a less violent manner”.

Every controversial prosecution in effect narrows these provisions. Why prosecute? It might be different if the police could even credibly pretend to be able to stop such burglaries. When the state can’t protect people and their property it has no right to stop the brave volunteers who try. This is not a call for vigilantes. Michael did not set out to punish the offenders. He tried to bring them to justice.

I am campaigning for the right of individuals and the community to defend themselves. It is a campaign for existing rights, and for restoration of rights lost to politically correct practice only in the last 25 years. New Zealand will never re-attain the low violent crime we enjoyed until 30 years ago until we have restored the routine expectation that people will defend themselves and others against criminality. This campaign is a call for the courts and the police to uphold the law themselves, even if they don’t approve of it.

Dr Martin Lally of Victoria University read last Sunday’s Herald and copied to me his letter to the Minister for Courts. You can see the message he has taken from the case in these excerpts:

“1. The fact that the police were unable to locate the victim of the assault is rather disturbing. Obviously, he is entitled to compensation (and should probably get it if he can secure appropriate legal services at the taxpayer’s expense). I trust you will spare no expense in attempting to locate him for this purpose, and institute procedural changes to ensure that these sorts of errors do not recur. …

3. The fact that the Judge ordered Mr Vaimauga to pay $150 to a charity is rather disturbing. I thought our courts had got well past the point of compelling anyone to do anything. Of course, the circumstances were exceptional (taking the law into one’s own hands in defense of private property is obviously serious stuff) and she doubtless took this into account in departing from the accepted practice.

4. It is commendable that Judge Mather asserted that taking the law into one’s own hands is unacceptable. However, she should have added that there are NO exceptions to this general principle. Some misguided members of the public might, for example, feel that had Mr Vaimauga witnessed rape, it would have been acceptable for him to confront the assailant and strike him on the shin with a baseball bat. Of course, as we both know, the right course of action here would be to ring the police and patiently await their arrival (and this would remain true even if the call did not get through, or the location was misunderstood by the dispatcher, or a taxi sent in substitution).”

Here are some recent Ministerial questions. A lot more in this genre will be posted on the ACT website. To me the answers are contemptuous of the public. What do you think?

Questions for Written Answer

Received 4th August 2005

Question: 08412 (2005) Published – Police – Corrected Reply

Portfolio: Police

Minister: Hon George Hawkins

Date Lodged: 20/07/2005

Date Received: 03/08/2005

Question: What steps, if any, has he taken to encourage people to oppose crime and apprehend offenders using the rights set out in sections 34 to 48 of the Crimes Act; and if none why?

Answer: I have not considered it necessary to encourage people to exercise the rights set out in sections 34 to 48 of the Crime Act, as the public continues to assist Police in the prevention of crime and apprehension of offenders.

Question: 08421 (2005) Published – Police – Corrected Reply

Question: Does he think the police should issue statements criticising as foolhardy the actions of people who actively oppose criminal actions, or attempt to apprehend offenders?

Answer: I agree with the advice given by Police and Neighbourhood Support New Zealand cautioning members of the public to act within the law and to not take unnecessary risks when confronted by criminal offending.

Question: 08404 (2005) Published – Police – Corrected Reply

Question: Is there a police or government policy preference to press charges so that the court can decide whether the use of force was justified in defence of self or another or in attempting to stop offences by another, instead of exercising the discretion not to prosecute even where the police consider that conviction is less than likely, and if so what does the Minister think of that policy?

Answer: There is no Police or Government policy preference to press charges so that the court can decide whether the use of force was justified in defence of self or another or in attempting to stop offences by another. I am advised that the outcome of the Police’s exercise of its prosecutorial discretion depends on the circumstances of individual cases and the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines. This response also answers parliamentary question for written answer No. 8410 (2005).

Question: 08410 (2005) Published – Police – Corrected Reply

Question: What weight do the police give to their effect on public willingness to help prevent crime or to apprehend offenders, before prosecuting people who have acted with such motives?

Answer: I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No. 8404 (2005).

Question: 08414 (2005) Published – Police – Normal Reply

Question: To what extent, if any, does he consider that police should have special powers or privileges not available to ordinary citizens?

Answer: All New Zealanders are bound by the laws of New Zealand. This response also answers parliamentary questions for written answer No. 4815, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 8423, 8424, 8425, 8426, 8427, 8428, 8429, 8430 (2005).

Question: 08430 (2005) Published – Police – Normal Reply

Question: Does he think members of the public should attempt to apprehend offenders, beyond taking details and reporting to the police; and if not why not?

Answer: I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No. 8414 (2005

Question: 08429 (2005) Published – Police – Normal Reply

Question: Does he think members of the public should intervene to stop crime while it is underway, beyond taking details and calling the police; and if not why not?

Answer: I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No. 8414 (2005).

Question: 08426 (2005) Published – Police – Normal Reply

Question: In what manner if any, has the Minister ever raised with the Commissioner of Police the question whether prosecution of people whose offending may be characterised as “taking the law into their own hands” discourages public assistance in combating crime, or discourages exercise of the rights reflected in sections 34 to 48 of the Crimes Act; and if it was raised what was the result?

Answer: I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No. 8414 (2005).

Question: 08423 (2005) Published – Police – Normal Reply

Question: What guidance is available to police exercising the prosecution discretion, on distinguishing between “taking the law into your own hands” and exercise of the rights reflected in sections 34 to 48 of the Crimes Act, and what does it say?

Answer: I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No. 8414 (2005).

Question: 08425 (2005) Published – Police – Normal Reply

Question: In what manner, if any, has the Minister ever raised with the Attorney General or the Crown Law Office the question whether prosecutions for “taking the law into their own hands” may be discouraging public assistance in combating crime, or discouraging exercise of the rights reflected in sections 34 to 48 of the Crimes Act; and if it was raised what was the result?

Answer: I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No. 8414 (2005).

Question: 08419 (2005) Published – Police – Normal Reply

Question: To what extent, if any, does he disagree with Sir Robert Peel’s seventh principle of policing: “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence”?

Answer: I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No. 8414 (2005).

Question: 08417 (2005) Published – Police – Normal Reply

Question: To what extent, if any, does he disagree with Sir Robert Peel’s fourth principle of policing “To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives”?

Answer: I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No. 8414 (2005).

Question: 1021

Portfolio: Police

Minister: Hon George Hawkins

Date Lodged 15/02/2005

Date Received: 02/03/2005

Question: What policies or written material are readily available to guide Police asked to advise the public about their exercise of rights of citizens’ arrest?

Answer I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No.1011 (2005).

Police are guided by sections 48 and 52 to 56 of the Crimes Act 1961. Because each situation is different, and because “reasonable force” and “necessary” have a legal meaning, police are in a position to dispense very general advice only. However, it is the role of the police to enforce the law, not to provide detailed legal advice.

Question: 1022

Portfolio: Police

Minister: Hon George Hawkins

Date Lodged: 15/02/2005

Date Received: 02/03/2005

Question: How do Police ensure they give accurate advice when asked to explain to the public the nature or limits on rights of defence of home, person or property?

Answer I refer the Member to my response to parliamentary question for written answer No.1011 (2005).

Police are guided by sections 48 and 52 to 56 of the Crimes Act 1961. Because each situation is different, and because “reasonable force” and “necessary” have a legal meaning, police are in a position to dispense very general advice only. However, it is the role of the police to enforce the law, not to provide detailed legal advice.

Question: 1027

Portfolio: Police

Minister: Hon George Hawkins

Date Lodged 15/02/2005

Date Received: 02/03/2005

Question: Have Police any survey or other information that would indicate the views of “frontline” officers on the clarity or practical comprehensibility of the law governing self defence of home or property, and if so, what does it say?

Answer Police are guided by sections 48 and 52 to 56 of the Crimes Act 1961. Because each situation is different, and because “reasonable force” and “necessary” have a legal meaning, police are in a position to dispense very general advice only. However, it is the role of the police to enforce the law, not to provide detailed legal advice.

Portfolio: Police

Minister: Hon George Hawkins

Date Lodged: 15/02/2005

Date Received: 03/03/2005

Question: Is it the Police view that property owners who warn off intruders increase their risk of injury if they carry a weapon when they do it, and if so, on what information is that view based?

Answer I have been advised that the Police view, which is shared by many groups including Victim Support New Zealand, is that property owners who warn off intruders increase their risk of injury if they carry a weapon. There have been too many instances of people taking the law into their own hands and getting injured or killed. Police consider that the best option is to call the police.

Lilybing.

Just the little girl’s name is enough to evocate distressing images.

We see an awful evil and feel the helplessness of children beaten or abused.

We want to do something about those who betray the trust their little children have in them.

But we must not be convinced by the argument that because child abusers may cloak their actions as discipline, we must eliminate physical punishment as discipline.

Section 59, Crimes Act 1961 states:
“Every parent or person in place of a parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if that force is reasonable in the circumstances.”

If Section 59 is repealed we are left with the Crimes Act.

This makes even the lightest, uninvited and unwanted but deliberate touch punishable by law.

This is a very bad standard for assessing the actions of caring parents.

It is the “if some is good, more is better” argument in reverse.

We know that salt is essential but too much is a poison.

Children drown trying to swim but we do not ban parents from taking them into the water.

Cruel beating of children is bad, but it is not a necessary logical consequence that normal smacking is also bad.

Humans develop customs to channel dangerous human conduct safely. If we fail to respect and nurture such customs we may be responsible when such conduct becomes utterly out of control.

The repeal of Section 59 is a law change that is ostensibly aimed at a tiny minority of child abusers. This abusive minority will not notice or even give a damn that a law change has been made. The courts mean nothing to such people.

The unintended result is that it may criminalise thousands of loving and well-meaning parents.

Our existing law is very strong against child abuse. But enforcement is the key. Enforcement involves doing three things properly, reporting or detection, then conviction against evidence testing, and finally sentencing.

If any one of those elements fails criminal abusers can gamble on getting off or not being punished. When criminals know that, our law will not work. There is no reason to think that repeal of Section 59 will improve enforcement.

It will be recognised as just an attempt to impose loopy theories about child rearing by self nominated experts and busy bodies. They will threaten and force prosecutions.

Under the Crimes Act judges will have to wrestle with new distinctions, trying to avoid being forced to convict people they see as morally innocent.

This bill criminalises most acts of parenting. It will cause parents to live in constant fear of being charged with abuse.

Unfortunately the noblest intentions can bring the most savage and evil results.

We believe that the law should:

* Leave people alone, provided they are not harming others
* Not give discretion to well-meaning (but narrowly educated) judges

Give your Party Vote to ACT.

Clean Safe New Zealand is a painful myth.

We are paying the price of a culture that penalises the innocent and forgives the criminal.

The law-abiding middle class of New Zealand has lost confidence in the law.

There is more indecision from those who must enforce the law.

More doubt about its value.

More reluctance to provide resources.

More argument and more pressure on the courts to find cunning arguments to avoid enforcing the clear words of the law.

Criminal behaviour is disproportionately concentrated among a small group of people who are contemptuous of the law. Whatever the excuses, alcohol, religious mania, a warrior inheritance or absence of self-esteem, these people know that the law will not be enforced as it was intended.

For these career criminals we should perhaps consider the US policy of Three Strikes and You are Out.

Unpalatable as it may be to us, this policy has seen crime reduced every year in the United States since 1991. Violent crime is now below levels of the 1960s.

Making the law more certain, and rejecting excuses does work.

We believe that laws should:

* Mean what they say
* Be enforceable
* Be enforced

Give your Party Vote to ACT.

In the past year 18,000 more people left New Zealand than came back.

One quarter of all our university graduates are overseas.

These people are being ‘pushed’ from the country and we don’t think it is right.

Why are they leaving and not returning.?

* Low Wages. We import qualified people from poorer countries at low wages and drive our own offshore. Eventually these imports will realise that they too can do better in other richer countries and they will desert this country.
* This generation of graduates don’t want to cripple their children with an unrecognised NCEA certificate, skills in kapa haka and an expertise at filling out welfare forms. How can their children expect to compete with highly qualified Asians?
* They worry about government promoted privileges based on race.
* They are concerned about historical payouts that just go on and on.
* There is fear of out of control vicious young criminals that the community is too scared to punish.
* And they can see little chance of paying back huge student debts on low salaries in this country.
* They see a lack of support for business entrepreneurs.

We can’t pretend we don’t need these people; we do.

If a CEO said “Don’t worry about staff losses, we’ll just get some more people.”

They’d be fired. And rightly so. As a country we should be treating this loss of talent much more seriously.

These are the people who will make the biggest contributions to this country in terms of tax; energy and ingenuity.

They will stay if there are sufficient incentives and a political climate that is supportive.

ACT will work for a pro business and low tax environment to foster growth and attract back Kiwis who have voted with their feet.

Make your Party Vote count. Vote ACT.

Maori are being set up.

They have been given a poisoned gift.

They are being egged on by the government to hinder development.

The Local Govt Act stipulates that Maori must be consulted over a broad range of decision making. In practice they have the final say on undefined requirements for cultural and spiritual sensitivity though the law fudges exactly what veto power they actually have.

They don’t have powers that they can use to develop or create anything. All they can do is to impose conditions on other people’s projects

This is blatant discrimination on the grounds of race. Ostensibly it is to benefit Maori but it is having the opposite effect.

Maori have been put in an impossible position.

They are seen as the roadblock.

The hindrance to progress.

A difficulty that has to be overcome.

They can only benefit from these obstructive powers by clipping the ticket on every project, resource consent or hint of progress.

More and more people are angry at this compulsory iwi consultation process.

The best and brightest wont stay in councils when all they can see is the hypocrisy and time wasting of all the consultants now required by law.

Maori are being set up.

They are being seen as the bad guys, always opposing progress.

Constantly embroiled in frustrating others, in interfering with their plans, is no recipe for constructive respect or healthy relationships.

It is not a training ground for Maori entrepreneurship.

Relationships between Maori and their neighbours are poisoned.

The ‘Maori Dimension’ of the Resource Management and Local Government Acts is a travesty.

ACT has fought through three parliaments for a level playing field for all New Zealanders where the law is colour blind.

National and the Winston Party are at last getting on board.

This year for the first time they have joined us in voting against bills that refer to the spurious principles.

We just hope that they don’t lose their new found consistency between what they say now, and how they vote after the election.

Give your party vote to ACT.

We created the policies that the others are now adopting.

17,000 crimes in the past decade have been classified as solved but the criminals have gone unpunished.

Why?

Because the criminals once safely in prison for one crime can then confess to all others and not be prosecuted for most of them.

A police officer will interview an offender in prison, gain a confession to multiple offending and clear multiple offences.

These prison confessions and non prosecutions are classified as Custody Clearances.

80% of them are for burglary, theft and fraud.

The records say Crime solved and the statistics look good.

Offenders know the system and refuse to confess to major volume offending until they are safely in custody. Career criminals are known to confess to numerous additional offences that would not count against them if they are caught re-offending after they leave prison.

The victims are not consulted. They are not compensated and the offenders go unpunished for most of their crimes.

Without a prosecution the victims have an even lower chance of getting compensation. Once again the victim is left to suffer while the criminal gets a clean slate option.

Lets not be harsh on the Police for this. Even if they brought 50 prosecutions and got 50 sentences, the criminal will serve them concurrently. In practice he’ll only stay in for the length of the longest individual sentence, less up to 2/3 parole.

When he becomes eligible to be let out at 1/3 of his sentence the Parole Board is not even allowed to consider full punishment for the crime he has been convicted on, let alone the offences he has admitted but not been convicted for. All they can consider is the future “safety” of the community.

None of this is right.

Criminals should be accountable for their crimes. They should not be able to escape prosecution by so-called Custody Clearances.

ACT will restore truth in sentencing to eliminate this charade:

* Concurrent sentencing will go, and the rules will require some real additional sentence for every conviction
* Parole will be abolished and replaced with a supervision period at the end of every sentence.

Give your Party Vote to ACT to help restore sensible sentencing.

Last night’s terrorism uncovered scars I’d never seen on a Chinese friend I’ve known for nearly 20 years. Trembling with rage, she repeated over and over “Muslim wild pigs”. I murmured some silly warning about stereotyping. She wasn’t listening. She was back 35 years ago, age 13, huddling terrified in the family shop cradling her 20-year-old sister who had just had a huge hole blown in her back by a shotgun. Her other sister, 18, was lying beside them in a spreading pool of blood from the shattered pelvis that has kept her in a wheel chair ever since.

No one was ever brought to justice from the mob that fanned out from the mosque to attack their Chinese neighbours.

She set me reflecting on the nature of evil. How often it is tied to high-minded rhetoric. Perhaps only small differences determine whether a theology or ideology produces violence, corruption and tyranny, or produces instead, as Tony Blair called it last night, “civilization’s” respect for the innocent. How often our leaders strive to trivialize these vital differences. How fragile are hard won principles in the face of high-minded claims of more urgent morality.

My experience at Phil Goff’s all-party briefing on the cricket tour earlier this week came to mind. All the other parties opposed the tour. Their argument was only about who should stop it and who should bear the cost, the cricketers, or the Government.

On the scale of moral blackness it is on a different planet, but they share a thread of common reasoning with the religious London murderers. They are equally indifferent to the distinction between personal or individual moral responsibility, and collective responsibility. They believe in group punishment.

Essentially the tour stoppers want to impose group punishment on Zimbabweans who have done no wrong and have no power to stop the wrong. They want to ‘send a message’ to the wrongdoer Mugabe by inflicting loss on innocent third parties. They equate those myriad individual citizens with the state, the collective, and its baboon leader. Yet many of those individuals would hate him with more reason and intensity than any calculating politician here.

In both cases the civilian innocence of those who pay the price may be an attraction. They are not collateral damage. They are the objects. Those frothing to send a message feel that their willingness to break normal moral limits to punish the innocent underscores their anger and sincerity.

The others at Mr Goff’s Beehive briefing took it as obvious that ends justify means. Sometimes they do. People unavoidably pay a collective price for the misdeeds and wrongs of their leaders. But collective punishments and using wrong means to pursue noble ends are very steep slippery slopes. At the very least there is an onus on those urging collective punishments to weigh the gains against the costs. Very dear principles are at stake.

Yet the briefing included absolutely no assessment of the practical impact of the proposed tour ban. No alternatives were compared. ACT was considered immoral for asking.

There are plenty of ways in which the cricketers could make Mugabe wish they had never come. Perhaps humiliating Zimbabwe on the pitch is too tall an order, but there are plenty of more serious and subtle ways in which television coverage could draw attention to Mugabe’s thuggery.

Mr Goff offered no evidence that the tour will support Mugabe. There is precious little evidence that boycotts are effective. Afghanistan was liberated from the Russians by force and the Moscow Olympic boycott simply damaged sport and the Los Angeles Olympics.

Freedom of association means nothing if it can be denied whenever a majority thinks it would be better to shun some people.

Touring does raise moral questions. I hope the cricketers leave Mugabe in no doubt about their feelings. But politicians have no moral right to tell cricketers to do something that political correctness has prevented them from doing themselves.

Mugabe now owes his power to Mbeki of South Africa. Instead of holding their African mates accountable, Labour politicians have continued the fawning of their anti-apartheid days, most notably at the recent Durban conference, where the Hon Margaret Wilson supported the third world hypocrisy of African countries blaming the US for the world’s ills.

For Helen Clark and Phil Goff to make this stand is like publicly boycotting a restaurant for paying mafia protection money, while privately begging to stay on the mafia’s cocktail party list.

The superficial political calculation at Mr Goff’s briefing said it all. Political relics of the 70s are fomenting a “stop the tour” wave of hysteria, glorying in the echoes of their salad days.

“Stop the thug” as a goal is too risky for them. They have flocked to be seen with Mbeki and there are too many African skeletons in the Labour closet.

Labour railed at what they termed Muldoon’s insult of Mugabe in 1981. Mugabe was demanding that the New Zealand government simply ban sports links. Muldoon excused Mugabe’s indifference to niceties like freedom of association with the comment, “when you’ve been in the jungle for a few years shooting people, it’s a bit difficult to understand”. For days international headlines condemned this rudely truthful observation.

Ironically, Muldoon was then resisting false African claims that the Commonwealth’s 1977 Gleneagles agreement obliged NZ to ban sports contacts with South Africa. We haven’t heard a thing from Africa about that precedent since Mugabe’s racism became too naked for even Labour leaders to ignore.

Instead, Labour rushed to send Chris Laidlaw to open a High Commission in Harare. It had nothing to do with the interests of New Zealand. Its job was to hand out aid that propped up Mugabe and to host streams of Labour visitors who came to fawn on him.

It continued even though they knew that Mugabe had borrowed ruthless Korean troops to murder between 5000 and 10,000 of his tribal enemies in Matabeleland. Labour howled racist at anyone who predicted exactly the disaster that has befallen the Zimbabwe people. They labeled as “colonialists” people who sought more sensitivity to human rights from freedom fighters.

At least this week Mr. Goff denounced the Maori Party’s Pita Sharples for excusing Mugabe’s actions as “ a bit of tough and tumble” while the regime which “has just been released from colonialism to find their own feet.”

Chris Trotter foams that ACT’s position is “obscene”. As I apologised for my silly soothing words to my Chinese friend this morning, I did not feel obscene. I felt superficial. But Mr Trotter has tried to whitewash the philosophies behind the greatest obscenities of the past 100 years. It is the collectivists who’ve preached that the end justifies the means.

Mr Trotter’s comrades see ACT’s focus on personal responsibility, and constraints on what rulers may do under the rule of law, as mere property owners’ quibbles. He is dead wrong. Tyrannies feed on group privileges and rights. They are defeated by individuals who take responsibility, and by protecting the rights of those individuals.

Judge the philosophies by their outcomes. By their fruits you shall know them.

Recently a jury refused to convict Northland farmer Paul McIntyre for shooting at thieves who had stolen his quad bike and were escaping from his farm.

If the jury had followed the letter of the law then the decision may have been different.

But they saw common sense and acquitted him.

Juries of ordinary sensible people have refused to convict in nine out of ten similar cases.

The law is out of step with the realities of life.

If you live in a rural area and there are criminals stealing your possessions and threatening your family it has always been your right to defend yourself.

Not any more.

Current police advice boils down to “do nothing”. Take no risks. Try to get a look at the thieves – if you can without offending them. Call the police and, in the morning, your insurance company.

If you choose to defend yourself, then you will be charged with an offence.

They want to let the courts decide what you should have done.

They want to be fair to the criminals who were stealing from you or threatening you.

You could spend between $20,000-$300,000 to defend yourself in court.

You’ll lose your firearms license, and the criminals will target your family.

This is wrong, and sane thinking juries around the country are saying that it is wrong.

I am on a mission to reinstate the traditional principles of self-defence as a step toward correcting this law that is plainly out of step with the community.

These principles include:

* Taking responsibility for the consequences of our own actions.
* Honouring the police and those who put themselves at risk for the sake of others.
* Encouraging people to help themselves and their neighbours without the fear of court action against them.

Give your Party Vote for ACT. We speak up on your behalf.

If you are brown, have some cunning and some spare time you can get on the consultancy payroll at your neighbour’s expense.

Once there your wishes and prejudices can overrule elected councillors in local government.

In the past a majority of your neighbours had to elect you before you could throw your weight around in local government.

Now a self-appointed, self-defined Maori can tell you and I when, where and what we can dig or build on our own land. A motorway can be held up for months by a taniwha. International feature films can be held to ransom. Sand from one beach cannot be used to replenish another. Frogs being flown from one town to another must have solemn honour guards of befuddled elderly Maori.

Until 2002 this official fawning to racism by local government had no legal justification. Now the law tells all local authorities that they must take part in the charade.

It looks like a great deal for Maori.

But it comes at great cost.

The actual costs are invisible. High amongst them are the endless delays caused by so-called consultation.

The bright ideas frustrated.

The vital public infrastructure projects that are stalled.

The talented people who will never be persuaded to serve as councillors when they see the time wasting and hypocrisy of consultation.

But the real damage and cost is to Maori.

The rights that they have been given are a poor substitute for property rights. They can’t do anything positive with them. They can’t develop land or initiate improvements. All they can do is obstruct or remove obstruction. The only way to benefit is by extortion.

Maori are increasingly being seen as the obstacle to progress.

They are being perceived as greedy ticket clippers who contribute nothing of value.

A stream of Treaty payments and consultancy fees are not wealth.

Genuine wealth creation comes from providing improvements that people want, not from taking fees for letting them through drafting gates you have built across their rights.

Maori are being conned.

They are being given a false authority and they are being sold a false expectation that the mythical principles will give them future affluence and respect.

We don’t apologise for detesting the Treaty Industry.

The Treaty itself is a fine document that should protect, not threaten, the valuable rights and freedoms of all New Zealanders.

It has been wrapped in spurious principles and unauthorised, illegitimate, political hypocrisy.

ACT supports the Treaty, but not what is being done in its name. Give your Party Vote to ACT.

Minorities are right to feel that our law is hostile to their cultures. It has also become hostile to the traditional cultures of mainstream New Zealand.

Those who should monitor these matters are being worn down by endless consultation and politically correct processes.

Control has been left to an elite.

These self-anointed social engineers despise the values of the majority.

At their insistence we are getting dollops of indigenous ritual splashed all over the government process.

This transplanting of hui customs like prolonged welcomes, karakia and cries of kia ora is an insult to Maori. It is just lip service.

Traditional Maori customs are not window dressing.

A genuine respect for indigenous cultures would reinstate important cultural traditions lost to us all.

Courts for instance should be made more awe-inspiring and tapu instead of more user-friendly.

They would include traditional concepts such as:

Shame – Whakaama

The Criminal Courts have eliminated shame from the process.

Most Pacific and Asian cultures have shame-based systems for maintaining a healthy society and to discourage wrongdoing.

We should restore this by immediately stopping all name suppression after conviction.

And criminal records should be public knowledge. No more Clean Slate whitewashing of past crimes.

Revenge – Utu

The Prison system has eliminated retribution.

For Maori, as for many other cultures, utu or retribution was essential to restore balance between a wrongdoer and his victim.

A genuine respect for Maori customary law would give us a modern equivalent of utu.

In our present system retribution is unmentionable.

Compensation – Muru

Muru insisted that every family member was responsible for compensation for offence by any relative.

This group liability ensured that everyone had a vested interest in reducing offending.

The current law doesn’t even make families support themselves, let alone pay for the damage they cause. Remorse and reparation are just meaningless words.

The courts have lost confidence in their traditional authority. The judges have been made to seem impotent eunuchs apologising for any offence, real or imagined, and always seeking flexibility and sensitivity to diversity.

The Law Commission suggests that judges need local consultative councils and liaison officers, to tell them how to transform their courts in to one-stop resource centres for their local communities.

This lip service to multi-culturalism is worse than useless.

However genuine traditional custom has a lot to offer that should be restored to our laws.

ACT seeks commonsense enforceable laws for all New Zealanders.

Give your Party Vote to ACT and we will continue to resist the well-meaning social engineers.