>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.
Remember - being 50% of a prison population does not mean that they commit 50% of the crimes. They may do - they also may commit more or less. But all you can deduce from the prison population, is the number of people tried and convicted.
Of course, but it's a start. They aren't exactly running gulags.
10% committing 50% of crimes is a factor of 10 over-achievement, there's no reasonable argument that the odd wacko prosecutor tips the scales this much.
Counting the victims is another crude proxy, the coroner really does see every murder victim. And IIRC this shows roughly the same disparities in major demographics, in most countries.
"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.
"From 2010-2014, police and justice figures show Maori made up 51 per cent of prison sentences, 40 per cent of prosecutions and convictions. And yet, over the same period, Maori made up only 30 per cent of those who received pre-charge warnings - in other words, were let off - compared to 57 per cent of Pakeha."
This one might be hard to meaningfully argue either way without getting into some kind of 'Maori are more likely to argue with police' kinda speculation. Also, I agree with you anyway - While there is bias within the system, it's not that bias alone (or even primarily) that's driving higher incarceration rates for Maori. It's systemic socioeconomic disadvantages that are really more about 'poor people to go prison more' coupled with 'a disproportionate number of Maori are poor'.
>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!
The bias can also happen earlier than that too. My (white) father managed a big warehouse with a Samoan man. They had the same pay, same company car and similar route home. Every few weeks the Samoan man was pulled over and had his ID checked and was questioned about the late model car he was driving. My father wasn’t ever pulled over.
Thomas Sowell's book Discrimination and Disparities discusses discrimination and has made me reconsider what is actually happening in the type of scenario you describe.
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!"
Exactly that. People all want to "stop living in the past", but the past they want to forget is the one where Maori were treated like shit, so they can ignore why the present looks the way that it does: it was created by that past.
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..'.
You can accept that bias exists, while denying that it explains very much of the difference.
Again I know nothing about NZ, but in places where I've seen numbers, you can invariably show that the amount of bias in policing/sentencing statistically significantly different from zero... but also that is explains at most a few percent of the differences in violent crime convictions.
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 would suggest that blatantly strawmaning someone only worsens your position (and breaks one of the HN guidelines).
They weren't "defending violent gangs" in any way, they were providing a practical example where laws were passed to try to do what you said and they obviously didn't work as expected (nor did they solve the problem).
Maybe providing another example (or proposal) would be a better way to discuss your position.
> 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.
do you have any clue what the mongrel mob is responsible for? they peddle methamphetamine, commit murders and are generally shit people. I can't believe you are defending that.
"I can't believe you are defending <thing they never defended>" is a dishonest arguing tactic. It is an appeal to emotion and a strawman, and doesn't help your position at all.
> 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.
That example doesn't belong there. We tend to underfund government enterprises (other than the military), and then we complain that they are inefficient, so we can justify underfunding them. It's circular logic, and many government agencies are the victims of just being underfunded. I doubt that DMV employees wake up with the intention of being shitty.
Also, Comcast is your proof that just because an entity is large and private doesn't mean that customer service is better.
Perhaps people who grew up under the shadow of gangs have a different perspective.
I didn't object strongly to having my bags searched at every shop door, or my phone bugged, or having soldiers watch me through their SUSAT sights, or even being incorrectly detained in the back of a police Land Rover for an hour. It was annoying and uncomfortable but better than masked gunmen kicking in doors at 02:00 to deliver a kneecapping or worse.
Life involves compromise and sometimes those compromises are made with the things that are most precious, so that we can retain them in the future.
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
There are people that need to be in treatment against their will. This sounds like a horrible experience you went through but personally I do think there are some required exceptions to civil liberties. But as your case may highlight it would seem it needs a lot more oversight.
I had two months of observing. I wouldn't agree with your judgement from what I saw. There was two patients at the hospital who should have been in jail and offered some type of psychological treatment. They would walk around sexually assault other patients, take off their clothes and then get drugged up but repeat their actions the next day. Talked to other patients and everyone either had a lot of stress or anxiety from a shitty life. Just another hell on earth.
I made my site say it because I was going to attempt a hanging. I decided after talking to my doctor the week leading up, I would wait for my application to be reviewed and which is done in less than 90 days (almost over). If it’s denied I could contest but haven’t decided. Sort of a moral question for me I think about; so people don’t write me off as depression but gender dysphoria with all I did. I also talked to a lawyer to try going to court for medical assistance in dying in Canada because I’m being unrighteously denied. I explained my points to her, she said I was right where I would have a case but it would be appealed if went forward and would take a year. So after that at the time of updating the site, I got my evaluation from my doctor in my favor for DIGNITAS in Switzerland. I was curious to see if the site would be taken down from controlling relatives no longer in my life. I just leave it because there is no reason to edit it anymore. I might upload some files to google drive that I haven’t is the only thing left I may do for the site. Anyway I think people should do similar if in same situation. I’ve known a few people who took their life without leaving much behind for people to understand the real reasons.
That's not a third world phenomenon though. It's a nasty, unfortunate case of groupthink that sadly human beings are very susceptible to.
You see the same thing with regards to treatment of people who were convicted of crimes that they were later acquitted of but society at large still treats them like they were an actual offender.
Reminds me too of stories where people get in trouble with scammers in foreign countries and the authorities are never on their side and no one will listen and there just is no logic.
It's a harrowing and horrible account to read. It's a stark realization to come to that human beings basically aren't capable of computing the "truth", so things like logical argument and rationality and evidence actually mean nothing. They appear to work a lot of the time and you have to be careful about that because it's somewhat of an illusion. The only thing we value is consensus, and once we think we've reached it the process for coming to it stops. So if you're on the wrong side of consensus and every single person is buying into the consensus and there is no one willing to permit dissent then you are very screwed. Logic doesn't exist at that point as the majority doesn't need to persuade and you have no coalition and therefore no power.
Reminds me of Man's Search For Meaning and 7 Days to Live My Life and most of the middle ages really.
Its certainly more than a case a groupthink that "humans" are susceptible to.
Well educated non zealot humans are certainly less susceptible to it....anyways
If we take intralizee's recounting of the events as correct there are several levels of horrific corruption, abuse of power and religious fanaticism involved. The not wanting to even know what is going on as long as they can bill the "patient", the tons of prejudice...jesus there are soooo many levels of wrong going in there, read again, please.
Third world is maybe the wrong way to describe it, by it I am meaning the levels of corruption and poorly educated people on display there.
In a way though it is way worse, there is a horrifically well engineered synergy between state/private entities here at play to extract money from the patient's insurance whilst severely violating his rights.
I've read it, read it and re-read it. My conclusion stands.
Abstract your level of analysis up and away from the specific doctrinal belief systems at play here and look to the fundamental operating system of human beings.
It's not that "those people" were corrupt. It's that the operating system has some fundamentally hideous bugs in it that most of the time go unnoticed. Until they don't. Especially when they show up in concert like this.
You might call them zealots and uneducated. The problem is they were simply faithful to a specific doctrine in which they were likely well educated. There are many scenarios in which you can suddenly find yourself on the wrong side of that.
There are a strikingly large number of pretty scary "features" in the operating system of individuals and groups. That things like this happen isn't surprising. Its horrifying, but I can't say it's surprising.
If you break it down to the simplest level there are only three types of action. 1) what you want to do 2) what you are willing to do 3) what you are not willing to not do
Three things basically underpin that. a) beliefs b) incentives c) social pressures
Do the math on it. It's scary to see how easily this kind of thing can happen. When no one has an incentive to stop it and when they have significant disincentives against stopping it, and when they think it is good and they think that's what everyone else thinks.
Take a long hard look at the history of how people have treated other people over time. How many cognitive bias traps we fall into. How unable we are to come to agreement about controversial issues. Being deeply flawed is our M.O. It's why rich stream of messed up shit happens every single day.
I would think your assessment is correct for approaching things at first glance but I would say the people who abused me were "corrupt" at the end of the day. Not sure if that is the best word but I'll use it. I took it as far as possible for me to examine if they were corrupt and came to this conclusion. You're corrupt when the other person who has been traumatized by you (unjustly as well), goes through a lengthy processes of doing whatever is legally possible to illustrate the abuse and you choose to deny it. I found out the hospital, the university police and even the fbi would rather me not have any remedy to the torture I went through and for their illusions to not be shattered. Even my insurance that was billed wouldn't do anything when I reported it. HIPAA was even violated as the hospital lawyer had access to my complete medical history without my consent. I reported that and I doubt the government agencies did anything. Born with faith in the system, as I would prefer the logic of systems to emotional individualists. Yet, I learned the systems are completely broken for the wealthy.
Sure. I'm not in disagreement with your conclusion. It depends on which level you do the analysis at as to the exact conclusion you draw.
You mentioned you were born with faith in the system and would prefer logic of emotion. This is precisely why I make the argument at a higher level of abstraction. I believe the default viewpoint is the one u put forward that we tend to assume people are reasonable. It's an unwarranted assumption that leads us to a dangerous place and a healthy dose of skepticism goes a long way.
I believe the best way to make progress on these issues is for the wider public to understand how deeply flawed our systems for coming to conclusions are and to promote and permit dissent in order to raise the quality of thinking and decision making. That's much easier to do when at least some people are willing to say "well now hold on... it could be that WE are actually wrong about this and that warrants discussion". That's what would have given you a chance.
Your prayers don't do anything. I can't even be sure if you're not trying to jab at me. Since people needing to pray is likely what contributes to the mental illness of needing to believe in a god stay socially acceptable in society because of religious teaching. Where all the people who don't like what they don't consider normal gang up on the minorities. Also to the downvotes, I'm not sure why I'm downvoted and maybe it's because the original commenter is flagged so context is gone for my comment.
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.