KEY POINTS:
There is nothing particularly radical about Labour's endorsement of a policy banning gangs - which begs the question why it has taken so long.
"Banning gangs" is nothing more than a return to old criminal non-association laws from 30 years ago - abolished when rights became more important than responsibilities.
Under earlier laws, "consorting with known criminals" was a criminal offence. Such laws were not difficult to enforce - police only needed to prove that a person subject to an order not to associate with known criminals had in fact done so, and that the person associated with was a "known criminal".
Given Labour's long opposition to such laws it is difficult not to be cynical about its timing now - eight weeks from an election.
Twenty years ago, then Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer was fond of loftily opining that Western democratic societies were unable to ban criminal gangs without infringing on the rights of ordinary citizens - despite the fact that West Germany had banned neo-Nazi parties, and the Republic of Ireland had made the IRA illegal.
Neither of those countries is known for draconian infringement of citizens' rights.
The point is well made that banning gangs per se may not in fact be such a good idea - at least while the Mongrel Mob and Black Power strut around in their patches or "colours" they are easily identifiable.
Banning these and other gangs would result in at least the brighter of their members ceasing to be so visible, and thus not so easily identifiable.
Criminal non-association laws would have the same effect without the disadvantages.
The police are aware who most gang members are and which of them have criminal records. If consorting with known criminals becomes an offence, groups of intimidating thugs on our streets would quickly become a thing of the past. Problematic laws banning gangs themselves would become unnecessary.
Simple non-association laws have another great advantage - the simpler they are the less liable they would be to challenge by the members of my profession who make their living getting convicted criminals back on the streets, or preventing them being removed from the streets in the first place.
Simple non-association laws would prevent long esoteric arguments about the meaning of terms such as "gang" or "gang memorabilia" or even "illegal organisation".
Although it's about 25 years too late, Labour's belated realisation that gangs are just criminal organisations, and not some alternative to whanau, is a welcome development. Pity it comes so close to an election.
* David Garrett is an Auckland lawyer.
