While Zac Guildford gets forgiveness and life coaching, run-of-the-mill crims get locked up and ignored.
This week I was contacted by an old flatmate with whom I shared a rumpty house in the 1990s. It was a fairly squalid phase of my life: a typical weekend involved staying up all night then doing a spot of weeding whilst still wearing a sequined evening dress, and stumbling to Andiamo for Thai chicken curry and Heineken. For breakfast. I think we all had drug and alcohol "issues", frankly.
When the flat split up, this particular flatmate still owed me some rent. I hadn't really seen him since then but had heard he had been clean and sober for almost a decade. Now he was writing to say he wanted to settle the debt. I had long ago forgotten about the money but I was extremely grateful for the message. Funny, I got it the same day as the big hullabaloo about disgraced All Black Zac Guildford.
Guildford had just issued an apology for his behaviour in Rarotonga and admitted he needed help. This statement seemed to be greeted with a round of approval. No one seemed to be saying he needed to be locked up and written off, even though he had apparently committed a criminal act.
I was struck by the contrast between the reaction to Guildford and that meted out by this National Government to run-of-the-mill "criminals". Make no mistake: it is them-and-us when it comes to crime and punishment. If you are middle-class with alcohol and drug problems, you are worthy of compassion and need help to turn your life around. If, however, you happen to come from a working class or underclass background, you are a write-off and should be locked up forever. Never mind that addicts from deprived backgrounds usually have such grim experiences of abuse that their addictions are practically inevitable.