Are Labour for the criminals?

Charles Chauvel has nicely painted Labour into a corner on law and order and the best part it all is he used his own brush and his own paint:

It is the height of arrogance for National to assume that there is such a case, and to announce that it will put the House into urgency to deal with it. I doubt they will get the support they think they will to do this.

We have a Supreme Court now. National need to learn not to engage in knee-jerk, urgent legislation to overturn its decisions if we don?t like them. The debate here need only be about the position we should put the Police in until we have had time to consider the Court?s decision and work out whether their powers need to be supplemented, better regulated, or both.

Charles somewhat disingenuously refused to put Labour’s position in the post. He spends all his time attacking the government for introducing urgent legislation, but he’s too duplicitous to say whether Labour will support it or not.

All he has done is set Labour up for accusations that they are soft on crime and they’d rather let 40 drug dealers before the Courts off the hook.

He also ignores the fact that Labour has passed retrospective?legislation?under urgency before. You may remember that, it was to stop Darton vs. Clark. Labour, in order to avoid the court case and having to defend their use of $800,000 of taxpayers money illegal taken to fund their campaign passed retrospective legisalation in order to avoid prosecution. Naked self interest.

At least in National’s case they are passing legislation to ensure scum drug dealers and other assorted criminals can remain behind bars and off the streets.

Let us see the the colour of Labour’s jib, are they for law and order or for the criminals?

52%
×