Wednesday, November 11, 2015

THE REBELS ARE NOT A SERVICE CLUB, THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

Rebels Motorcycle Club logo.jpg

An ex NZ armed service soldier is among those detained for revocation of his visa to remain in Australia and being held at the High Security detention centre near Perth in WA while his case is under appeal.

Former Lance Corporal Ngati Kanohi Te Eke Haapu is currently in a maximum security prison. Photo / Supplied

Mr Rutene is being promoted as a victim of sovereign  Australia's policy to deport foreign nationals who are no longer welcome to stay   under the very simple if somewhat fraught unique rights we enjoy to enter Australia even without being convicted he has not been convicted of a crime.
Well no, but joining the Rebels was not a great move if he really wanted to take advantage of our special relationship and live unmolested in The West Island.
One year in jail means a conviction in a more serious category than a minor offence and in the eyes of Border Policies joining the rebels is just as serious, hence Mr Rutene's situation.

Mr Rutene joined the Rebels Motor Cycle Club and that folks is a rather massive step up from Round Table, Lions, Rotary, Jacees, Probus or Pakeke Lions, a member of which may still be a dodgy bastard who may still break the law, even one  serious enough to end up with many years in the pokey, they however are still a rarity
A whole lot different for the Rebels, who, embedded in the social fabric of our neighbor are a criminal gang and widely involved in the manufacture, distribution and retail of all the serious drug scourge that attack society.

Back in the day bad bastards were called outlaws for a very good reason, why they are now  deserving of rights far in excess of those of the poor buggers they condemn to a life of misery and degradation by criminal activity, is a mystery.

Timothy McVeigh also served his country, the Bombing of the Murrah Building was still a crime and he was executed for killing people.
Around the beginning of the decade NZ police became very alarmed at the prospect of The Rebels setting up a chapter here, they are already struggling with the Mongrels, Black Power, Head Hunters and others who compared to the Rebels would be best described as Amateurs.

17 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

Hint: there's a reason why they're called "human" rights, and not "people I personally think are deserving of having them" rights. It's the same reason why "principle" isn't a synonym for "gut feeling."

Why do I have to explain basic shit like this to grown men?

JC said...

"Why do I have to explain basic shit like this to grown men?"

Say again?

This is a trained killer whose recent photos show he is going or gone bad with membership or at least strong association with a criminal gang and is a non citizen of Australia. What country wouldn't want to deport him as a bad character?

His human rights are an issue to be considered but hardly the only ones in determining his and his adopted country's interests.

JC

Anonymous said...

JC. I believe he was a gunner not "a trained Killer" Veteran..If you want to justify your position first you have to demonise the subjects. They are all painted with same broad brush, brutish nasty bastards, threat to society recidivist to a man etc etc.

There are around 500 New Zealander being detained against their will who are NOT rapists, murderers etc etc. Now if they applied the character test to all of the Rebel Motorcycle gang I'm sure that the outrage would be in Australia not here.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/09/30/kiwi-mother-fighting-deportation-after-living-australia-37-years

I have just learned of UK man who who moved to Aust at the age of one and who served a sentence of 15 months for starting a bushfire in WA (omission more than commission) on his release he was detained and is in the process of being deported to country he knows nothing about and can't afford to take his family to..

So please stop the bullshit about chucking people out of planes or shooting them as the reek of smug self righteousness is becoming nauseating. It is the lack of transparency and the secrecy under which this is being done is the cause of the attitudes shown on this blog.

Just as an aside a man acquitted of a single rape or murder/manslaughter is no more a better or worse person than one convicted as there are many degrees of the crimes. What is happening is utterly wrong.

First they came for the Jews
I did not speak out as I was not a Jew

Then they came for Gypsies
I did not speak out as I am not a Gypsy

Then they came for the homosexuals
I did not speak out as I am not a homosexual

Then they came for the criminals
I did not speak out as I am not a criminal

Then one day they came for me.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Psycho Milt said...

His human rights are an issue to be considered but hardly the only ones in determining his and his adopted country's interests.

OK, obviously I do have to keep explaining this shit: in a civilised country that claims to have rule of law, your human rights are not merely an "issue to be considered" when the state feels like detaining you indefinitely without charge. It's one of the basic principles of western democracy - why do right-wingers have such a struggle understanding it?

Howie said...

"This is a trained killer whose recent photos show he is going or gone bad with membership or at least strong association with a criminal gang and is a non citizen of Australia. What country wouldn't want to deport him as a bad character?"

And he might be a member of the covert ISIS horde right JC? He's swarthy isn't he? Despite him not having been actually convicted of any offence he might commit one (look at his "associates"), therefore he should be imprisoned then deported!

I see Key has been caught telling lies again. It's odd this time though as he's doing it to help ensure a bunch of people who are apparently the scum of the earth get dumped on New Zealand against their will. That'll end well.

JC said...

"OK, obviously I do have to keep explaining this shit:"

Only to yourself in order to bolster a flawed argument. Human rights are very hard to lose but they are not absolute, eg, if they were.. then abortion would be murder in the legal sense and a foreigner could never be deported if he didn't want to go.

Quite clearly there are exceptions to the notion of detention/imprisonment without trial and is used to detain under the antiterrorism laws, contagion, threat to stability or security etc.
In the current case my understanding is the detainees do not have to stay but can elect to come to NZ.. they choose to stay. If they can't come here then they also have the legal avenue of Habeus Corpus and should be able to force the Australian Govt to legally justify their detention.

But as non citizens I very much doubt they have a natural right to stay in Oz if they have the right to come home.

JC

Anonymous said...

Well they are scum of the earth now because they have been branded so in the cause of political expediency. Both in Parliament and on this blog.

Unless there is a public enquiry on the cause of the riots I suspect the blame will fall directly on the shoulders those who stood up to the guard beating the refugee ie New Zealanders. It is not in Australia's interest to find blame in a British company employing Australians on minimum wage.

An ex British army Captain who served in the Far East once said to me on the subject of Australian Military police. "Those people scared me, I hope they remain a democracy."

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Psycho Milt said...

Human rights are very hard to lose but they are not absolute, eg, if they were.. then abortion would be murder in the legal sense and a foreigner could never be deported if he didn't want to go.

Er, what? A foetus isn't a human in the legal or any other sense, and there isn't any human right to live in a country you don't have citizenship in, so neither of those examples makes sense.

In the current case my understanding is the detainees do not have to stay but can elect to come to NZ.. they choose to stay.

Sure. The Australian government is merely detaining people indefinitely in a concentration camp to encourage them to drop their appeals against deportation to a country they mostly have no ties with. The detainees could end the punishment by waiving their right of appeal. Can you see the human rights issue with that approach to the right of appeal, JC? It's a big, fat one and it's right in front of you.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt I never thought you were an idiot but you are doing a great job of changing my mind.

"The detainees could end the punishment by waiving their right of appeal. "

Not true.

They can continue to appeal, from NZ.

JC said...

"Er, what? A foetus isn't a human in the legal or any other sense"

True in part, but only through a legal artifice as to when life starts.

"and there isn't any human right to live in a country you don't have citizenship in, so neither of those examples makes sense."

Which means you agree that Oz could have packed up these folk and dumped them straight in NZ which would have been a severe embarrassment and strain on us. That means your real argument is against the detour to Santa's Island for a more timely processing for both countries. Having made the policy (which I don't like) it makes sense to detain them before some of them go walkabout.

On the last point, they retain the right of appeal if they come here but the detainees think they have a better chance staying put and making a fuss. Outside of these little Internet bubbles the citizens of both countries are quite happy for them to stay there forever.. or in a prison.

JC

The Veteran said...

All I can say is that I'm more than happy for those on the dark side of politics to keep shilling for 'them' ... keep up the good work chaps.

Psycho Milt said...

They can continue to appeal, from NZ.

That is technically feasible, sure. Just like it's technically feasible for me to play Beethoven's 5th on a banjo. The fact is that these guys' appeals are over if they leave Australia, and that's exactly why the Australian government is putting them in a concentration camp - to give them as strong an incentive as possible to accept their fate and leave. It's called extortion when someone other than a government does it.

Which means you agree that Oz could have packed up these folk and dumped them straight in NZ which would have been a severe embarrassment and strain on us.

Well, it could have if it breached their human rights a different way, by denying the right of appeal. Either way, human rights trampled.

Outside of these little Internet bubbles the citizens of both countries are quite happy for them to stay there forever.. or in a prison.

For the nth time: human rights aren't contingent on your or anyone else's opinion of the humans involved. The citizens of both countries might be quite happy for them to have their organs harvested for transplants and the remains ground up for fertiliser, but that counts for a total of 0. Your rights aren't subject to a public opinion survey.

All I can say is that I'm more than happy for those on the dark side of politics to keep shilling for 'them' ...

If you're happy to consider an explanation of the meanings of the terms "principle" and "human rights" to be "shilling" for rapists and murderers, go right ahead. I wouldn't be.

The Veteran said...

PM ... perhaps you can elucidate on precisely what human rights we are referring to. You keep referring to detention without trial ... the alternative view is they are in detention pending resolution of their appeals.

Specifically, can I refer you to the background paper prepared by the Aust Human Rights Commission relating to 'Human Rights Issues raised by visa refusal or cancellation under section 501 of the Migration Act'. You can access it at https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/background-paper-human-rights-issues-raised-visa-refusal-or-cancellation-under-section-501

It is a weighty document but my reading of it does not indicate any substantial support for your POV.

Psycho Milt said...

The relevant sections:

* the risk that such persons may be subjected to arbitrary detention (including prolonged or indefinite detention), contrary to article 9(1) of the ICCPR

* the risk of separation from children and other family members due to a person’s detention and/or removal from Australia, resulting in possible breaches of articles 17 and 23 of the ICCPR.

In the situations we're discussing here, those are actual occurrences, not "risks." There's plenty in there to be horrified about, but Australia has a proud and lengthy history of government-endorsed racist bigotry, so they're less easily horrified than we are.

The Veteran said...

PM ... you are being a tad selective re your second. I refer you to Ministerial Direction 55 which sets out a range of considerations that may be relevant and, if so, MUST (my emphasis) be taken in account in any decision to revoke or cancel a visa under s501 ... these other considerations include the impact of refusal or cancellation on "the persons immediate family in Australia (if Australian citizens, permanent residents, or have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely).

Some might say there is a degree of balance in that although those who would have it that s501 is pure evil won't. Depends on where you sit I guess but I remind you yet again ...s501 was voted into law 'unanimously' by the Aust Parliament.

JC said...

"but Australia has a proud and lengthy history of government-endorsed racist bigotry, so they're less easily horrified than we are."

Uhuh.. Ahmed Zoaui shows that when facts are thin, his past opaque and public sentiment split the "good" Labour Govt had no problem putting him in solitary confinement for ten months followed 4 years of imprisonment and containment.

When you can show that convicted men and those of poor character have been similarly treated by Aussie as Ahmed then let me know.

JC

Shelldrake said...

Perhaps the NZ Defence Force should make an announcement as to this chaps service. What gallantry or bravery awards (decorations) does he have and what was the exact nature of his service in Afghanistan. Did he provide bodyguard/security/personal/protection to the PM?

The media proclaim that he was a Gunner. Was that as an Artilleryman or a Machine Gunner in an Infantry Section? Somewhat different occupations. Was he honouably discharged.

As is normal and historic the media have absolutely no undrsranding of military activities and show no interest in getting informed.