Preventing unwanted pregnancies, and dealing with them once they’ve happened, are two quite separate things
Man, can we display this as a disclaimer before every abortion debate? It seems to be entirely ignored. You can be against killing babies but for making abortion not as farcical and painful as it is now.
There's lots of things the public might have an interest in that the media chooses not to include in its publications – porn, perhaps (I'm still waiting on the Herald on Sunday to start featuring Page 3 girls). Less savoury things. Editors make decisions all the time about what not cover. I think this whole "well Woman's Day sells!" argument is just an excuse not to think about it too hard. Why is it this issue – celebrities having no privacy whatsoever – that we all just abdicate any responsibility for? Maybe something to do with resentment?
Also, I'd wager the reason the SST isn't going after shots of Judith Collins has precisely nothing to do with her "illness" and everything to do with being shit scared of her and her (governing) party.
Now Judith Collins has called the press liars, I hope the press has the guts to call her the same.
Parata is like a walking cliché regurgitator. I actually groaned out loud when she said she could "unpack" those three dollars.
I've read it twice and I still don't know what her answer was. Is this how she got so far in her career? No one understands her so they assume she must know what she's talking about?
The media isn't allowed to say it's suicide.
Sections 71 to 73 of the Coroners Act 2006 restrict the publishing of details relating to suicides in New Zealand, unless the permission of a Coroner is first obtained. Permission may only be granted if publication is unlikely to be detrimental to public safety.
The Law Commission is currently reviewing it.
Your understanding of the law around assaults on animals is mistaken.
Sorry, all I read was "everything else you said was correct but I can't ever admit I'm wrong."
The problem with this "debate" is it's constantly framed as "good parents who give little Johnny a smack on the bum will go to jail." What we have is two forms of smacking: the aforementioned, which is antiquated and ineffective, but probably not going to cause serious harm to the child. And then we have the abuse that involves using a hose or piece of wood to thrash a child that pretty much every reasonable person would agree is harmful.
The problem? You can't legislate for one and not the other. Or rather, we tried, and the result was this murky "reasonable force" law that allowed the latter group to get off thanks to a jury of their peers. And so in an effort to stop the latter, we must legislate for both groups, and leave it up to police discretion to decide what gets prosecuted. I'm happy with that outcome. If the debate was framed this way, I dare say most of the country would be too.
But again, if the intention of the law isn't to criminalise parents who smack, it was an odd choice to pass a law that makes them criminals.
You've got it backwards. Assault is a crime. But before the law change, there was a part of the Crimes Act that specifically allowed adults to assault children. The law change removed that defense, bringing assault against children into line with assault against adults, or animals. It's on the pro-smacking crowd to justify why child assault should have an exemption, not the other way around.
And we needs to stop using the word "smacking". It's hitting. It's assault. "Smacking" is a word used to diminish the act, but it speaks volumes about our society that the only time it's used is when it's assault on children.
But it’s also important to keep these numbers in context: New Zealand’s Got Talent’s series total of 725,601 streams is less than the average 899,965 viewers it earned per broadcast episode.
Yeah, but at least those 725,601 streams equate to 725,601 people, unlike the Nielsen ratings which is what, 600 homes across the entire country? I know which figure I put more stock in.
Does New Zealand not have a parody defence like in the U.S.?
The link Bomber tweeted that they sent him states:
A person commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, carries on an activity under an operating name that includes the word “Police” or the words “New Zealand Police”, in a manner likely to lead a person to believe that the activity is endorsed or authorised by the Police or any part of the Police.
Surely satire or protest is a "reasonable excuse". No one is going to think that's a real police ad, and if they do, boy does that say something about public perception of the police.