This is what Labour MP thinks of a man’s rights
Would Nash ever say such things regarding for female offenders who committed crimes as bad or worse than Phillip Smith did? Of course not.
It’s concerning that the 2nd largest party in NZ (hopefully not for too much longer) has a police spokesperson with such an appallingly faulty understanding of the rights of offenders and ever thought it was ok to spout such hate speech concerning a male prisoner. The fact is that prisoners only lose the rights that our law decides they lose. A prisoner still has every other right. The right to freedom, the right to choose lifestyle and accommodation, the right to free speech and the right to vote are some of the rights prisoners are deprived of under law. The right to food, shelter, safety, lawful treatment and medical assistance are among the rights that prisoners maintain, and the High Court has just affirmed that it’s not legal to remove totally freedom of expression from prisoners and that any curtailment of that right needs to be justified on sufficient grounds, not be arbitrary.
We share disgust for Smith’s offending and it would have been fine for Nash to express disgust. We might or might not support harsher punishment or the death penalty but would do so through proper processes towards law change. However, it was unacceptable for a state-paid Labour police spokesperson and other MPs to use hate speech terms such as ‘monster’ and ‘creature’ that dehumanize a prisoner over whom the state has almost total power and for whom the state is responsible to treat with proper care and dignity under UN agreements and basic moral decency. Nash went even further in encouraging serious violent crime against a prisoner. He has ‘admitted he went too far’ but that doesn’t change the fact he did it. He should now face charges related to Harmful Digital Communications and Inciting a Criminal Offence. Will he? Probably not, after all the victim was only a male.
Nash is a typical bigot who was born into privilege and has no real life experience of hardships that many inmates survived before being incarcerated. Sadly some inmates reoffend to get back to prison simply because the regular meals and roof over ones head beats what they would have on the outside. Give Nash 6 months inside so he can speak from experience then what he has to say might make sense.
Comment by JONO — Fri 17th March 2017 @ 2:38 pm
Get over yourself! mate
I don’t give a shit about smith and I would love to cut his throat !
For you to complain on this website about a convicted paedophile, murderer tells me you got problems buddy!
And if you like we can arrange for you to join him!
Comment by brent — Sat 18th March 2017 @ 5:48 am
None of us care about Mr Smith other than he is treated within the limits of the law.
Saying you would love to cut his throat says everything about you and Mr Nash than it does about anybody else.
He’s not complianing in defence of Mr Smith.
He’s complaining about the illegal behaviour of Mr Nash.
Threatening MOMA is absurd.
Are you also threatening his wife who said what Nash did was wrong.
Or the newspaper who published it?
Also psychologists have shown that those who present absolute hatred to peodofiles often have repressed desires or hidden behaviours in that regard.
Nash is just a Labour Party puppy.
Thanks for your input Brent but.
I think you have problems buddy.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 18th March 2017 @ 8:56 am
brent # 2: We reiterate:
You have failed to grasp the argument in our post. Your post amounts to personal attack on other posters. Threatening violence against other posters for stating things you don’t like is even more serious than personal attacks.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 18th March 2017 @ 10:08 am
Here is a person that has sexually abused a child.
Mr Nash and his Labour Party colleagues however support this sex offending.
They think it’s ok to force the boy to pay child support.
Also support rape of children being legal.
She can’t be charged like the US does.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/90579009/A-woman-listed-a-14-year-old-as-her-unborn-childs-father-Now-shes-charged-with-rape
Notice how she thought she had done nothing wrong.
That’s what happens when her whole life revolved around being taught feminist privilege and that she can do and achieve anything.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 18th March 2017 @ 10:09 am
DJ WARD
To be sure ?
are you saying I have repressed desires due to my hatred of Paedophiles, who manipulate, denigrate and then sexually abuse children due to their power over innocence, which remains life lasting irrespective of whether the culprit remains in custody for his remaining life?
Your a bloody hypocrite! None of us care about Mr Smith other than he is treated within the limits of the law. Did Smith care about the rights of the child he abused, dah!!! No and murder dah!!! No.
I say give him his door mat and then put him in a cell with a hardened criminal who has done murder , BUT has kids of his own . Then come back to me if anybody rearly cares David.
Comment by brent — Sun 19th March 2017 @ 10:17 am
P’S DJ WARD
If you feel that I don’t constructively contribute to helping fathers and putting across opinion which is hard earned from the coal face of de-fathering NZ then by all means Sir send an email to the Moderator John Potter and ask to have me removed, as I believe my opinion is littered with fact and informative up to date information on how to tackle problems arising from the above.
And, if this forum is here to worry about the rights of a convicted paedophile/murderer, then quiet clearly I am of the assumption that I am misplaced in my judgement as to my membership.
Comment by brent — Sun 19th March 2017 @ 10:30 am
Brent @6; Brent just because it is said of a guy that he is a paedophile, does not mean he actually is. He might be, but accusations are all too often used as to de-father families. I accept that there are men and women paedophiles, but don’t accept they should be killed. What if you kill them only to later find they were innocent of the allegations – would he be collateral damage? – would you lose sleep? Would that be okay with you? For it wouls assuredly happen judging from what I read in your posts. I personally know of cases where innocent men have been labelled that way and served time, even though their victims said they were innocent. What do you know about how “Evidential interviews?” I was shocked at my daughters account of te one she was subjected to – it should worry everybody. Personally I favour a fair trial where real evidence is tested, and children are not coached by extremist feminists who often are social workers employed by government and or NGO’s. Realise that men do not have to be guilty in order to be convicted, sentenced and to have all appeals declined – eg: Arthur Allan Thomas for one. As one of those who was falsely accused, I find your agressive posts very troubling. Why spend you energy on such personal attacks upon your fellow MENZ contributors. Aren’t there more worthy targets?
Comment by Jerry — Sun 19th March 2017 @ 3:44 pm
The real measure of us is in how we treat the least among us.
@Brent
I am a survivor of child sexual abuse who acts as a representative for other victims in a very large rape crisis network. You do NOT speak on their behalf. You would take us back to the days of witch hunts and inquisitions and lynchings. You are a barbarian.
Comment by Greg Allan — Tue 21st March 2017 @ 11:13 pm
This site is regularly used to highlight the loss of a man’s rights in the family court.
Regardless of this man’s crime, he is in jail.
In either case there is no justification for the removal of a man’s rights because he is the subject of a state institution.
Be distracted by emotions, hunt the man, and you will aspire to nothing more than a Feminist Bitch.
Comment by Evan Myers — Mon 27th March 2017 @ 11:40 pm
“Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose … Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don’t be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.”
John Jay Chapman, 1900
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Fri 2nd June 2017 @ 8:29 pm
Brent,
Completely uncalled for – your violent threats deserves you being reported to the police! Your opinion is basically if someone offends you, then you have the right to offend them more. As Gandhi said, an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind.
I have no time for child sex offenders (I have lots for pedophiles though), but to suggest that a better society is one where we should cut peoples throats that’s not a good idea.
There is an old saying about bringing a knife to a gun-fight. I would always make sure what and whom I was threatening. Where I grew up, you wouldn’t last very long, with those sorts of threats.
Comment by martin — Fri 2nd June 2017 @ 11:14 pm