The Gang Brand

Apparently there has been some talk about banning gang patches.

I have no coherent political opinion on this, because I cannot be bothered formulating one. I'm currently worrying about a chipped tooth and that's taking up all of my spare IQ points for today. M'kay? It's not my fault, dentists are expensive, and I might just need one if I don't want to end up looking like a gap-toothed gang 'ho.

However, despite my refusal to err on the side of vaguely intelligent I oppose any proposed ban.

Quite frankly, I like being able to see who is who in the filthy underclass world. When I'm sitting in public and I see a wave of Mongrel Mob patches wander past I know who to stare at. When I roll on up to the Highbury Shops and see Black Power patches sitting at a table outside I know that it may not be the best time to use that ATM.
When I see a dude with swastikas as personal adornment I know he's going to have a bitch of a time the next time he lands himself in Kaitoke Prison.

Quite frankly, in our capitalist society product branding is what we do.
Gang patches are branding. Kinda of like the Nestle logo, only less evil. Or the Act Party colours, also less evil.

And I'd personally much rather be able to openly identify gang affiliations. They wear their silly patches, then we know who they are, easier identification. And they choose that. So let them. If they want to run around advertising that they're criminals then shouldn't that make things a little easier for law enforcement? See gang patch, rock on up and check their car, check identity for outstanding warrants, etc. It's win win. They get their little 'woohoo, look at me the big tough gang member' kick, the rest of us get to see who we're dealing with.

Another thing that worries me about the mere idea of banning gang patches is tattoos.
Have you seen some of those ugly fuckers?
Now, what if they decided that they might just listen to the ban. Bahahahaha. Because they pay a whole lot of mind to our societies other laws right?
But let's just go out on a limb here and assume they don't just tell ya'll to get fucked and wear their traditional patches anyway. And then lets consider gang tattoos. Because the patch is worn as a sign of pride, the 'I'm a fucking staunch cunt' kind of pride. And I suspect they might want to hold onto that, after all it's their shtick. So what's another option? Gang patches tattooed on backs, and bunches of filthy yucky men wandering around topless. Now that folks, is scary!!

On the other hand, I possess vague memories of pubs like The Albert having little signs informing customers that no patches were to be worn in their pub, along with other questionable items of clothing. It seemed to work. I never once did see an obvious patched gang member there.
But that doesn't mean they weren't there. And it doesn't mean that they couldn't cause trouble. It would have just been harder to identify the grubby bastards.

So why not let them have their freedom of expression, and violate them in other manners, like constant police harassment?

As for the public, we've really got to collectively stop being intimidated by gangs. We outnumber them. That's something I really wish more people would consider. If the people of Wangas really don't like them hanging around how about a community project of marginalizing the gangs via collective action. I always wonder why this never seems to occur to community groups.

The only thing I really wish for is better patches. You know, design wise. I don't think whoever came up with them was very talented, and think it's about time the gangs upgraded their branding. Kind of like companies do when their old logos get a bit dated and tragic.

If You Can't Smack 'Em.....

So, if Kiwi parents suddenly find themselves facing legal ramifications for smacking their children what should they do?

1) Most importantly; Do Not threaten to bash, or kill, Sue Bradford.

This would make you look not only violent but also stupid for opening your big gob and raving away like a crazy person.

Sue Bradford also might just kick your arse if she goes loco and momentarily forgets about non-violence.

2) Throw all of your child's belongings out their bedroom window.

My mother did this to me once. I was throwing one of my tantrums, and damn was I good at tantrums. So I was sent to my room, as parents oftentimes do, just so they don't have to listen to their child's incessant screaming.
In my case I was quite irate that my parents had the audacity to do this, so I threw a couple of my toys out the window in a rage. My mother walked in, saw what I'd been up to, and proceeded to throw every toy and book and blanket right out the window to join my other toys. She even threw my favourite toys out that window. She then informed me that if I wanted to do that sort of thing that's where they could stay, permanently.
I remember looking outside and being absolutely gutted. Everything that was mine was lying on the back lawn and if I wanted to be with them I'd have to move outside.

It was quite effective, I never pulled that shit again.

3) If you child breaks something deliberately during a tantrum, respond in kind.

I know a child who breaks his least favourite toys when he's chucking a hissy. Which is stupid, and would be punishment in itself if the child later cared that about what they broke. However if they break your stuff or other children's stuff, then you do the right thing and break their toys. Just you wait, when your child finds his/her favourite teddy bear gutted and leaking stuffing all over their bedroom floor they might just learn a lesson. If not, repeat method until they get it. My guess is that it won't take long.

4) If you have more than one child, let them smack each other about.

Children do this anyway, and adults generally stop it. Adults don't like it when kids hit each other, usually because it leads to whining to the parent about each other. I suggest still stopping this sort of behaviour when it's not useful to you, and they're trying to kill each other for their own reasons.

However, if you cannot give your child a much deserved smack on the bottom other children could prove a useful source in getting your point across.

Scenario
Child 1: Chucks tantrum and will not respond to reason and 'positive parenting'.
Child 2: Gets nod from parent and smacks Child 1.
Child 1: Whines to parents 'Child 2 hit me'
Parent: Serves you bloody right for being a little terror.

Repeat as necessary.

(This one is questionable, as it may teach children to beat people up. But better than than a parental smack on the bum, right?)

5) Feed naughty child their least favourite 'I will not eat that, and will throw a tantrum if you try to make me' food, while everyone else in the family dines on their favourite foods.

Yummy food is a privilege not a right!
Tell the child this, and explain that their misbehaviour results in this scenario.
Ignore resulting tantrum, and give everyone else naughty child's favourite dessert.

Of course, the above methods listed may also be considered abusive, depending on who you talk to. But we're focusing on physical 'abuse' here. Because a smack on the bum will scar them for life, if you believe the anti-smacking brigade. But potential emotional abuse? Well they haven't legislated against throwing toys out windows or feeding your children food they don't like, so you will have room to move.

Lastly, you could try other methods. like time-out and rewards for good behaviour. But that would be no fun right? After all, parents smack children because it's fun and they enjoy it.
Yeah, that's why most parents do it.