KEY POINTS:
During the discussion about dog attacks recently, one particularly irate canine lover rang me on talkback to make a case for pitbulls.
He told me that he let his 3-year-old roll around on the floor with his flatmate's pitbulls and how it's not the dogs that are savage
but the owners.
And he finished with a ringing exhortation for people to remember - and I quote - "Dogs are people, too, you know."
Now, whenever anyone says anything especially absurd on talkback, I have a listener who immediately texts me: "Dogs are people, too, you know." This week, I received a text from him (or her). In the wake of the shooting of 2-year-old Jhia Te Tua, Tariana Turia said on radio, "Not all gang members are criminals". And seconds later, the text arrived on my screen: "And dogs are people too, you know."
I have a lot of time for Turia. I think she is an intelligent, compassionate woman who works extremely hard for her constituency. But when it comes to gangs, I have very little sympathy or patience. They present themselves as outsiders, removed from society. Indeed, one gang even calls itself the Outcasts. They do all they can to appear as intimidating and as threatening to the mainstream community as possible.
And I'm not just talking about the tatts. Tatts are fairly run of the mill these days - every coffee maker in the city seems to have them. It's the swagger and the scowl and the shades and bandannas. Gang members top up their benefits with criminal activity, from minor offending to heavy duty drug production; they choke our courts with their mindless and petty feuding, and they perpetuate a cycle of misery as they father children to witless women who hang with the gangs.
I very much doubt that any of the patched members pay taxes, fill in those endless Statistics New Zealand forms, volunteer as parent helpers at their children's schools or donate money to charity. In short, they are not members of the sort of society the rest of us are shaping.
So why in God's name do we let them get the benefits of our community? They want to be outsiders; fine, they should look after themselves. One of them gets sick, his bros can care for him. One gets shot and requires extensive and expensive medical treatment, the gang can chip in to pay for his care in a private hospital. I'm tempted to suggest the Mongrel Mob set up a Kennel Club for the education of their little mongrels, but the children should not be damned by the sins of their fathers, so I guess we can educate and minister to their offspring.
But the adults should be on their own. Patched members should receive no benefits from the community they disdain and actively set out to undermine. The sooner the law requiring people to account for their possessions comes in, the better. Explain where you got that Harley or that late-model Holden or that plasma TV. Show the receipts. Or lose the lot.
Can't we at least make it difficult for the gangs to get away with the crimes they commit? And yes, I know there are deep underlying reasons why young men choose to join gangs. If their home lives are so horrific that choosing the family environment of a gang is preferable to them being in the bosom of the family they were born into, then there are some deep social issues we have to deal with. But we know that, social agencies are working on that, and it takes time.
And please don't try and tell me that gangs are inherently OK, a group of misfit men and women supporting each other in place of family. From what little I know of them, gangs are run as feudalistic societies with one or two lords and plenty of vassals. The lords give crumbs to the vassals, and in return the vassals fight, serve jail time or give their lives in the name of the lords. It's not a brotherhood, it's exploitation.
I'm with Michael Laws, and normally I'd rather swill snake vomit than agree with him. Pita Sharples may well know gang members who are loving fathers and law-abiding people. But as my texter would say: "Yeah, right. And dogs are people too, you know."
