Can't hurt, can't help

A rather unkind anon, after accusing LawsWatch of neither reading nor comprehending, reveals that he or she:

...perchanced upon a copy of the new by-law from the nice lady at the council front-desk and the gangs to have their patches banned are specifically named.

Well, anon, congratulations. Indeed you beat us - and almost everyone else - to the facts by several hours. At last, though, something has been released from within the bowels of the Guyton Street spin machine. We couldn't read or comprehend what was being kept under wraps, after all.

But the Gang Bylaw is now on display in all it's convoluted glory, and you can even comment upon it. We suspect you're right in assuming:

...there's been some big changes between the by-law proposed at the council committee and the one they finally signed off so I'm betting their lawyers looked it over and met the objections of the Vic Uni academic.

In trying to restrict the scope of the bylaw to exclude girl scouts and other menacing potential wearers of uniforms, the bylaw in fact names the gangs to which it applies:

GANG
(a) means any chapter of the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, Hells Angels, or Head Hunters; and
(b) includes any other group of persons acting or going about together with the following characteristics:
(i) a distinguishing name; and
(ii) a perceived criminal element associated with that group of persons.

Though we admit it's unlikely, a quick change of name would exempt the gangs from the first part of that definition. It also leaves Wanganui wide open to gangs other than the named four. Then we're left with the tricky problem of defining a "perceived criminal element" associated with a certain group.

But let's leave aside the potentially costly and lengthy legal semantic quagmire for a moment and move on to the offence which the bylaw aims to stamp out, namely the wearing of patches around the town.

GANG INSIGNIA
(a) means the patch, emblem or badge denoting membership of a gang that is attached to the back of a Gang member's jacket; and
(b) includes the wearing of any colours in such a way that denotes membership of a Gang.

So, no patches (at least, no patches on the back of a jacket) and presumably no bandanas or similar clothing. Assuming we can nail down the definition of a gang and ensure every possible permutation of existing and yet-to-arrive gangs fits that definition, then that definition seems a reasonable catch-all. Of clothing, that is.

But anyone who knows anything about the development of gang culture knows that their members develop a whole raft of ways of identifying themselves. According to the Polk County Sherriff:

Gang members use hand signs, graffiti, jewelry and tattoos to represent their membership in a gang.

Can we next expect a "Bling-bling Blyaw"? And free laser tattoo removal courtesy of the Mayor? And it's not just jewellery and tattoos:

A gang may also wear their "colors", wear certain types of clothing, tattoos, brands, or likewise imprint their gang's name, logo, or other identifying marks on their bodies. Many gangs also adopt certain types of hairstyles and communicate through the use of hand signals and graffiti on walls, streets, school work, and school property.

So what's next? The "Wanganui Bad Haircut Bylaw"?

The only reason the likes of Black Power and Mongrel Mob haven't adopted these methods of identification is that they've never had to take off their patches. If this bylaw succeeds in doing that, anyone who thinks they'll hold a quick chapter meeting and decide to disband is living in a fool's paradise.

And no, despite one anon spluttering:

You obviously prefer to have dirty criminal mongrel mob standing over you rather than agree to anything ML suggests... Crazy. No brains.

...we have no time for the Mongrel Mob or any of the others. But if you believe the Diva's latest piece of grandstanding is going to do anything other than act as a minor annoyance to the source of a major problem, then we'd respectfully suggest that it's not us who are crazy.

Nor is the lack of a patch going to dilute the carefully cultivated menace these ratbags exude. Would you be any less intimidated walking past a group of gang members simply because they weren't wearing patches?

In short, the bylaw will be effective in only one aim - garnering publicity for the Diva, and support from those of an inflamed neck who don't realise just how ineffective it will be.

Lest LawsWatch be accused of being "soft on gangs" whilst trying to point out the innate fallacy on which the bylaw is founded (a.k.a. "doing a Barbara Bullock") we would point out that there are plenty of effective laws on the books which could be used to deal with the problem, yet they're rarely used in these circumstances.

Only the police can answer why that is - perhaps they don't have the resources to process the large number of additional offences that would hit the system if they enforced the letter of these laws. Or perhaps their crime figures wouldn't look so spiffy if they actually recorded offences police choose to overlook.

Crimes Act 1961

86. Unlawful assembly—

(1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner, or so conduct themselves when assembled, as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled—

(a) Will use violence against persons or property in that neighbourhood or elsewhere; or
(b) Will, by that assembly, needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to use violence against persons or property in that neighbourhood:
Provided that no one shall be deemed to provoke other persons needlessly and without reasonable cause by doing or saying anything that he is lawfully entitled to do or say.

98A. Participation in organised criminal group —

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who participates (whether as a member or an associate member or prospective member) in an organised criminal group, knowing that it is an organised criminal group, and —
(a) knowing that his or her participation contributes to the occurrence of criminal activity; or
(b) reckless as to whether his or her participation may contribute to the occurrence of criminal activity.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a group is an organised criminal group if it is a group of 3 or more people who have as their objective or one of their objectives—
(a) obtaining material benefits from the commission of offences that are punishable by
imprisonment for a term of 4 years or more...
(c) the commission of serious violent offences (within the meaning of section 312A(1)) that are punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more...

(3)A group of people is capable of being an organised criminal group for the purposes
of this Act whether or not —
(b) only some of the people involved in it at a particular time are involved in the planning, arrangement, or execution at that time of any particular action, activity, or transaction; or
(c) its membership changes from time to time.

And that isn't the only Statute which could be used - depending on the nature of the activity, there are others - or indeed other parts of the Crimes Act may apply.

Since so many anonymii misrepresent (wilfully or otherwise, we don't know) the point of posts, we've taken to adding the "slow readers' version" at the end; which in this case is: Assuming it can ever adequately define a gang (which we doubt), the bylaw can't hurt. But don't be deceived into thinking it can do anything much to help, either.

Comments on this post are now closed.