Monday, June 09, 2008

What now?

Can anybody imagine the grief or anger of the relatives of Navtej Singh.

In the Dominion Post there are pictures of the family of the polish tramper who lost his life just over the hills from us last week. Their pain is palpable; their faces crumple. But he lost his life because of an accident. He was pursuing his passion.

What of poor Mr Singh? Only 30. Gunned down by someone who values booze more than life, or at least someone else's life. Who will step up to make excuses for the murderer? Some bleeding heart counsel will no doubt make submissions about upbringing, poverty and more generically, skin colour. There is every possibility Mr Singh also came from an impoverished background and his race have experienced disproportionate poverty. But he was a worker. He was trying to make a crust legitimately - as far as we know.

He must have thought about the possibility of violent robbery. May have even experienced it before. He must have consciously decided that he would follow police advice and submit to the violation. He took a calculated risk, not just by choosing this course of action but by the very act of living and working in what is purportedly a dangerous area. He lost the gamble. Who to blame?

Where are the liberal left who remonstrate against apportioning blame? It's not about blaming someone, they say. The problems in South Auckland are systemic, they say. It's the gap between rich and poor driving violent crime. But there wasn't much of a gap between the perpetrator and the victim, was there?

And what next for the police? Don't defend yourselves they say. Call us. Too late. But where were you anyway? A neighbourhood as dangerous as this needs a constance presence. What am I saying. If there was a constant police presence this wouldn't have happened. If the neighbours are too terrified to speak because of gang recriminations the police are probably too scared to police.

I am sick at the state of parts of this country. I am sick at poor people being victims of other poor people who have lost all traces of humanity. But mostly I am sick of our seeming inability to deal with them. RIP Navtej Singh. I am sorry.

8 comments:

KG said...

As long as we're denied an effective right to self defence tragedies such as this will continue to happen.
When, oh when will people realize that the police cannot and will not protect them from thugs?
It's our own responsibility and our right no matter what politicians may say.

Anonymous said...

Without the right to self defence you have no rights at all. I say protect yourselves by whatever means necessary and take chances with a jury trial. Worst that could happen is that you are alive.

But...in this case there were three of them. Hard to see how this could have had a different outcome given the circumstances.

Brian Smaller

Anonymous said...

Worst that could happen is that you are alive.

Worst that could happen is that you'll be shot by the cops.


Hard to see how this could have had a different outcome given the circumstances.


Chances are he would have taken at least one of them with him. It's basic mathematics - the kind they don't teach you at state school.

The rate of crime is a function of the profits divided by the chance of being caught or killed. Given that, an armed populace is simple mathematics.

Anonymous said...

If Helen Clark was capable of making that sort of statement, Lindsay, she would romp back in.
That is the sort of statement that makes the argument for having a woman Prime Minister.

Anonymous said...

"If Helen Clark was capable of making that sort of statement, Lindsay, she would romp back in."

?? You can't be serious, anon. The philosophy of Clark & her ilk are the cause of the situation in which we find ourselves. Their policies of fostering personal irresponsibility have flourished and there's no "better" example than the streets of Sth Auckland.

"That is the sort of statement that makes the argument for having a woman Prime Minister."

Or a female one, even. More nonsense, anon. You want the best person for the job, irrespective of gender/colour, etc.

Lindsay: you expressed my exact sentiments. That poor young man had three little girls, the youngest an infant of six mo.

Anonymous said...

Sus - Part one. You have really confirmed what I said. Helen Clark is incapable of making that sort of statement because "she and her ilk" have brought about the climate that gives rise to this situation, AND, she would never have the humility to admit that their philosophy could ever be wrong. The "I am sorry" at the end of Lindsay's statement would never pass Helen Clark's lips. So Sus, you are right, but that was my point.

Sus - Part two. You are right again. Of course we want the best person for the job, regardless of colour, creed, gender etc. My point here was that women "can" bring a difference to politics, but mostly they emulate the men. Helen Clark has not brought a feminine perspective to the role of PM. Her level of arrogance, vindictiveness and abuse of opponents is probably at the worst extreme of any politician. However, Lindsay's statement has a compassionate touch, which you have admired, which has a compelling message that makes us all step back and acknowledge that something has to change. It conveyed a sense of hopelessness at the absolute waste of opportunity, yet a sense of resolve to address the root cause. It has a humility, yet steel, that I don't think a male could muster with the conviction that Lindsay has. A sense of outrage, yet purpose that sometimes a woman can express better than a man.
Leadership qualities.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your clarification, Anon. I missed your points; my mistake.

I'm just so angry and frustrated at the years of socialist bullshit forced upon us, I fear I'm starting to see pinkness where it isn't.

Which begs the question: aside from my place, *are* there any red-free zones left? :)

KG said...

Crusader Rabbit is totally red-free, Sus. :-)