Excerpted from the Spark discussion list
Is there any sanctimonious law and order or religious fanatic that doesn’t have a secret past full of transgressions? A lot of people will be asking this after the exposure of Act’s law’n'order heavy David Garrett.
Act is not a major political force or threat, and it really never has been - indeed, the fact that it needed to be founded indicated that the highwater mark of the Business Roundtable had passed. Nevertheless it’s great to see them hoist on the petard of their own sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Garrett, it turned out, had been convicted of assaulting a psychiatrist in Tonga, had tickets for speeding in the US, and stole the identity of a dead baby to falsely (and illegally) obtain a passport. Not to mention his boorish sexism. How many strikes do his mates, like Garth McVicar (Sensible Sentencing Trust) and Rodney Hide, think he should be allowed? Presumably more than three.
You also can’t help but wonder how it is that someone who steals a dead baby’s identity to illegally obtain a passport can get off without a conviction and be given permanent name suppression.
Then again, I guess it’s no mystery. It’s called different laws for different classes. If Garrett was working class he would’ve got convicted and his name would’ve been in the papers. But because he was a lawyer, he got special treatment.
Will McVicar and his Sensible Sentencing cronies be demanding an end to this kind of double standard and special treatment? Presumably not, since it turns out that it was McVicar who suggested to Garrett that he run as an ACT candidate with a getting tough on law and order focus, although McVicar knew about the dead baby/false passport case and the special treatment that Garrett had got.
What a truly odious bunch of sanctimonious middle class hypocrites these people are.