OPINION
The best thing about National’s approach to gangs is that it’s remarkably simple. The worst thing about it is that nothing is ever simple.
Their gang plan, in a nutshell, is this: ban gang patches, stop gang gatherings, stop associations between gang members, and allow police to more easily search for illegal firearms.
There is fair bit in each of these, but for today, let’s focus on the patch ban and have a rummage around in history to see what we can learn.
Banning patches – shorthand for all gang insignia – is such an obvious idea, you’d wonder why it hasn’t been thought of before. And, of course, it has. Many times.
Indeed, gang insignia are currently prohibited in Government buildings. No great stress in that, although whether the rule is actually enforced is doubtful. A gang member dropping a kid off at school while wearing a patch is unlikely to come to police attention. In fact, I’m unsure if the law has ever garnered a conviction.
The more widely implemented total bans as proposed by National have only been considered at local levels. While there have probably been more, I have been able to identify proposed patch bans in 1988 in Wairoa and 1994 in Ruatōria, but the only patch ban to come to anything was that undertaken by Whanganui’s council in 2009. That experience gives us a number of insights, but before we explore those, a doozy of an example occurred much earlier in New Zealand’s prisons.
The first report of gangs becoming a problem in prisons occurred in 1978. By 1984, a violent attack by the Head Hunters on the Mongrel Mob in Pāremoremo signalled the very real ongoing issues. Inter-gang tensions forced the prisons to ban insignia related to the gangs. It was an entirely rational and understandable response: ban the insignia and defuse the violence. The gang response was facial tattoos, which are a powerful form of social control and mark a person as a gang member forever. Gang membership immediately became more committed, and inter-gang violence in prisons continued. Nothing is ever simple.
Here’s an interesting thing about New Zealand’s gang scene: we are the only country in the world where members of street gangs wear highly obvious insignia such as back patches, which are usually just the domain of outlaw motorcycle clubs. This means the country’s gang scene has a very high degree of visibility. Yet gangs create problems all around the world. Visibility and crime are not well linked. In fact, some of the biggest criminal gangs do all they can to have the least visibility possible. Think of the mafia.
Gangs’ visibility in New Zealand, however, does create issues. Large groups of gang members in public places or on New Zealand roads cause some people to feel intimidated or affronted, hence the desire to get rid of patches. But will less visibility have an impact on offending? No. Might it actually assist offending in some ways? Possibly.
When Whanganui proposed a patch ban in the city, the head of the police’s organised crime unit at the time wrote a letter to the editor of this paper saying the ban may “mean well”, but it was misguided. Patches, he argued, are a way gang members can be identified and policed, and removing them would drive the gangs underground. Similar sentiments were echoed in the police association magazine and by the city’s gang liaison officer, who argued the ban could “inadvertently … advantage them”. Nothing is ever simple.
The other criticism of the ban in Whanganui – and it was a biggie – was that it breached the Bill of Rights. Most people will not give a stuff about that, but I would argue that’s wrong-headed and dangerous. And so did the Act Party at the time. Then-leader Rodney Hide argued the proposal was “shocking” and undermined rights and freedoms.
Indeed, we are never challenged on our commitment to human rights over easy cases, because such cases never occur. We are only challenged when we are defending those who we vehemently dislike.
In the end, Parliament gave the Whanganui council the right to impose a ban. The courts, however, ultimately rejected it.
For all of this, the question remains: what will happen with National’s proposed ban? God knows, but it will almost certainly be enacted. And soon. It’s in their 100-day plan. I mean, why not just knock it out quickly? This stuff is simple, right?
The consequences of this – some knowable, others that will undoubtedly surprise – are going to be fascinating to watch play out. And what’s more, this is just one of the four gang proposals, and the others have some equally big fishhooks.
I’m always terribly alarmed and disappointed when politicians chip away at human rights – we all should be – but as a social scientist interested in crime, this is a terrific time to be alive.
Dr Jarrod Gilbert is the director of Independent Research Solutions and a sociologist at the University of Canterbury.