Posts by Graeme Edgeler

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Hard News: Crashing the party before it starts, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Has a political party ever bought banner ads on a website in NZ?

    I've definitely seen it. United Future bought some ad space (and a blog post) on Kiwiblog last year. And I'm sure other parties have bought internet ads as well.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Crashing the party before it starts, in reply to Gareth Ward,

    WAY TO KILL THE PARTY EDGELER. ;)

    Well, I've not long finished the second of two media interviews about the party party, so it will be pretty obvious that Kim Dotcom has someone who is not me as his lawyer. I have heard through the media that it is Chen Palmer.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Crashing the party before it starts,

    Well, duh. A lawyer didn’t breach his client’s confidence. I would have been astonished had Graeme answered Cameron Slater’s questions in any other way. To imply otherwise is either disingenuous or stupid.

    I did not feel that Cameron’s reporting about me in any way suggested any impropriety. His reporting seems entirely fair.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Moz,

    I’m with Miche: the consequences to a child of ongoing abuse from a birth parent can easily be worse than the consequences of that parent abruptly exiting their life.

    I have no doubt that this is almost always true.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Which semi-confirms the impression I had that on the day before the death penalty was abolished treason was the only crime you could be executed for.

    There were a few others as well, mostly in the Armed Forces Discipline Act (cowardice etc.).

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    So it will take a few more decades for majority support for not hitting children (although of course the children themselves are never polled)

    Children are sometimes asked. The Herald interviewed a class of students in 2009, for example, while the law change was going through.

    David Farrar recalls conducting his first poll, on corporal punishment in schools while the 17 year old chair of the Rongotai College Student Council.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    I’m pretty sure it was 1989.

    Te Ara says:

    The minister of education abolished corporal punishment in 1987, though it was not legislated against until 1990.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    I have already heard calls to bring back corporal punishment in schools in this current discussion.

    I don't think those calls ever went away.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Except my facts weren’t wrong. That’s what the evidence was. I was aware he eventually managed to get the court to throw out the charge because of the way it was framed.

    I have no idea what the evidence was, or whether it was credible.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Making it up on smacking, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    It is a generational thing. Sweden apparently banned hitting children in the 1970s and it has taken that long for cultural change to catch up with legislation.

    My understanding is that the 1979 law change in Sweden did not amend the criminal law, as happened here. CNN's description here accords with my understanding:

    The result was Chapter 6, Section 1 of the Swedish Children and Parents Code: "Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment." It passed almost unanimously.

    The section carries no penalties...

    If we had a passed a law that did not carry the weight of the criminal law with it I would not be making this argument.

    This position is one I've slowly come to. I make a lot of submissions on bills creating all sorts of criminal offences, and I've started asking myself, would I want any person who did this, and nothing more, to have to answer the question: "do you have any criminal convictions?" with a yes?

    Sometimes, the answer is yes, Other times, the answer is, only if X or Y is also present (e.g. some corrupt intention or knowledge), and other times, it's no, but the equivalent of a parking ticket would be okay. And for some things, marijuana possession, and what most people think of when they think of the word 'smacking', my answer is no. I'm not necessarily opposed to law in those circumstances, but feel it shouldn't be a criminal one.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2971 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 296 Older→ First