Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: About Arie

650 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 26 Newer→ Last

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Someone should feel free to lay a complaint … Crimes Act 1961, s 311:

    311 Attempt to commit or procure commission of offence

    (1) Every one who attempts to commit any offence in respect of which no punishment for the attempt is expressly prescribed by this Act or by some other enactment is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years if the maximum punishment for that offence is imprisonment for life, and in any other case is liable to not more than half the maximum punishment to which he would have been liable if he had committed that offence.

    (2) Every one who incites, counsels, or attempts to procure any person to commit any offence, when that offence is not in fact committed, is liable to the same punishment as if he had attempted to commit that offence, unless in respect of any such case a punishment is otherwise expressly provided by this Act or by some other enactment.

    And if the offence is actually committed, a person who incited or counselled someone to commit it is guilty of the offence itself as a party to the offence (and liable for the full sentence).

    [slight edit for clarity: half the sentence for inciting when the offence is not committed, the full sentence if it is]

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    If the offence is actually committed, a person who incited or counselled someone to commit it is guilty of the offence itself as a party to the offence (and liable for the full sentence).

    THAT... is a very very useful clause to be aware of.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Sacha,

    Much as I hate to enable turds like Laws and his fellow travellers, free speech is exactly the right to use a megaphone, if you can persuade someone to give you one. You're right about not being immune from consequences, and that's what (hopefully) will shut him down eventually. But free speech is binary - you have it or you don't. If you have it, some people are going to say things you don't want to hear. Don't listen. If the consequence of their speech is to cause you danger or pain, then take them to task with the people who pay their bills, those who lent them the megaphone. But don't shut them down because they might say something - if one of us is not free to speak, then all of us are not free to speak. That's actually not right-wing cant, BTW.

    Also note that the "right to free speech" is the right to speak without hindrance by the government; it's in the Bill of Rights Act 1990 ad "freedom of expression" and the Justice Ministry notes point out "The Bill of Rights Act protects you from the actions of anyone in government that interfere with you__(sic)__ rights."

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    And ironically, Mr Lhaws’ pet bylaw, the gang patch ban, appears to have been struck down as unconstitutional.

    But not for the reason you think. The Court ruled that its area of coverage was too broad, and amounted to de facto prohibition which was not the intent. The intent of the law itself is fine, but it covers too wide a geographic area according to the Court. So if it's re-drafted to a smaller area, it'll be acceptable to the Court. Or the ruling may be overturned on appeal.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    A couple of people have mentioned that things like police beatings and prison rape are not meant to happen in civilised countries. They are dead wrong. Whether it is consciously acknowledged or not, civilised society (i.e. the rule of law) absolutely requires such threats as police beatings and prison rape to function.

    Assuming most readers are law-abiding members of the middle classes, think about your own attitude to going to prison. Sure, the loss of freedom is by no means an insignificant factor, but can you honestly say other fears play no part?

    That's a fascinating hypothesis. So if you were arrested by mistake you'd be comfortable being beaten by the arresting officers and raped in your cell, on the grounds that you were contributing to the wider social good?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    I wondered how long it would take for that clip to generate outrage. Looks like it’s the usual knee-jerk.

    Thanks for that, Matthew. I wondered how long it would take for your usual knee-jerk contempt to show through.

    For the record, I do not want armed police on our streets. I accept that there's a role to play for the AOS in particular circumstances, but I do not want armed officers to become the norm on patrol. I know that many police are carrying firearms at present, in their vehicles or on their persons, but I don't have to like it or approve of it. I also don't like the society we've become that makes them regard it as necessary to do so.

    But thanks for playing.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to nzlemming,

    free speech is exactly the right to use a megaphone

    Wrong - that's a privilege governed by broadcasting law and other such statutes. And the Broadcasting Standards are explicit about a broadcaster's duty not to harm people or social groups in specified ways.

    Lhaws can say whatever he likes in person, but he does not have some special protection to be able to multiply his views using mass media without constraint or consequence.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • DCBCauchi, in reply to Sacha,

    Bullshit to notions that 'free speech' means freedom to a megaphone and from consequences. Broadcasting comes with conditions. Take the right-wing tosh elsewhere, David.

    Well, there you go. I didn't realise that thinking that a diversity of voices within a culture are a good thing and that self-appointed guardians of community morals attempting to silence people they don't approve of is a bad thing is right wing tosh nowadays.

    Doublethinkplusgood!

    Since Feb 2011 • 320 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    we could make something really clear?

    “Free speech” is not the right to say “whateverthefuckyoulike”. It is the right to speak and be free from persecution, violence, or coercion because you have spoken.

    any other interpretation of “free speech” is wrong. end of story. and that includes, “i live in a democracy so i can be a complete douche.”

    this means that Lhaws has exercised his right. and i welcome him to it.

    this doesn't diminish the fact that he is an arse, and does not deserve the platform he is given.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • DCBCauchi, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,

    That's a fascinating hypothesis. So if you were arrested by mistake you'd be comfortable being beaten by the arresting officers and raped in your cell, on the grounds that you were contributing to the wider social good?

    Only if I thought the rule of law were a good thing.

    Since Feb 2011 • 320 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    In general my preference is to add more voices and conversations to provide balance rather than to prohibit speech.

    However, our media system is broken in ways that mean that approach can not currently work. And it's seldom well-off white men who pay the price for that, is it.

    Speech is not so neatly separated from action either as some quaint conventions would have it.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to DCBCauchi,

    self-appointed guardians of community morals attempting to silence people they don't approve of is a bad thing

    The Broadcasting Standards Authority are not self-appointed. Press Council might be a different matter, sure - but the overall framework that governs mediated speech in this country is subject to parliamentary oversight. Take up your desire for a neoliberal paradise with them.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby, in reply to Sacha,

    i think he's referred to PAS as the self-appointed guardians.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to DCBCauchi,

    A couple of people have mentioned that things like police beatings and prison rape are not meant to happen in civilised countries. They are dead wrong. Whether it is consciously acknowledged or not, civilised society (i.e. the rule of law) absolutely requires such threats as police beatings and prison rape to function.

    What is this, the fascist comedy hour? Jesus Christ. Get a grip, will you?

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Rhys Lewis, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    It may be true that Arie received the injuries described from a police officer, but looking for evidence to substantiate the claim after it has been made is as good as an admission of guilt.

    I found it ironic that in an article about prejudice there was such a blatant and unsubstantiated claim, followed up by Russell's comment that he could think of no other explanation. On the one hand he is saying we should not jump to conclusions about people with autistic spectrum disorders, then on the other he follows the well-worn cliche that cops are thugs who beat people up.

    Perhaps we are not all immune from prejudice after all.

    My experience of people with autistic spectrum disorders is that if they are in a unusual situation, particularly where stress triggers are involved, it would not be at all surprising if the person or someone nearby who was unaccustomed to the behaviour received some injuries.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 5 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Che Tibby,

    i think he's referred to PAS as the self-appointed guardians

    Oh I know what sneering Mr Cauchi is is referring to, bolstered by his previous contributions. I just have little tolerance for fuckwittedness today. And if I overstep certain bounds in that, there would be consequences.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Sacha,

    However, our media system is broken in ways that mean that approach can not work. And it's seldom well -off white men who pay the price for that, is it.

    The best free speech that money can buy.

    A couple of people have mentioned that things like police beatings and prison rape are not meant to happen in civilised countries. They are dead wrong. Whether it is consciously acknowledged or not, civilised society (i.e. the rule of law) absolutely requires such threats as police beatings and prison rape to function.

    Abner Loiuma, Patrick Dorismond, and Amadou Diallo, anyone?

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5420 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to Rhys Lewis,

    It may be true that Arie received the injuries described from a police officer, but looking for evidence to substantiate the claim after it has been made is as good as an admission of guilt.

    I beg your pardon? Having an investigation is the same of an admission of guilt now?

    My experience of people with autistic spectrum disorders is that if they are in a unusual situation, particularly where stress triggers are involved, it would not be at all surprising if the person or someone nearby who was unaccustomed to the behaviour received some injuries.

    So you're saying that he attacked the police and the police was unable to restrain him? Who's wildly speculating now?

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby, in reply to giovanni tiso,

    What is this, the fascist comedy hour? Jesus Christ. Get a grip, will you?

    not at all necessary to be concerned Gio. if it wasn't for the threat of police beating and cellmate rapings i'd be out plundering and murdering my way thru downtown wellington as we speak.

    my mother would be appalled at my behaviour mind.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • Sue,

    ok on the laws thing, i'm a bit with lemming and here's why

    it's along the lines of innocent till guilty
    wouldn't you rather 1 super guilty person got off free from conviction to ensure say super innocent people were never wrongly convicted.

    So wouldn't you rather Mr laws and his choices of words were on the airwaves (until he breaks broadcasting standards) to ensure that our airwaves were not a controlled place where all things have to be approved before speaking

    now i know both cases are extreme, and a middle place would be good
    how do we get to the good place?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 527 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to giovanni tiso,

    What is this, the fascist comedy hour?

    Actually, I think it's the anarchist comedy hour.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    Only if I thought the rule of law were a good thing.

    Sounds like you've really thought this through.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Rhys Lewis, in reply to giovanni tiso,

    I beg your pardon? Having an investigation is the same of an admission of guilt now?

    To _pre_judge ("prejudice" if you like), is to make an assumption before having the facts. So looking for the facts after making the comment would be an admission to having pre-judged.

    So you’re saying that he attacked the police and the police was unable to restrain him? Who’s wildly speculating now?

    Russell's commented that he couldn't imagine an alternative, so I imagined one.

    Just for clarity. I have no idea what happened to Arie. There is a comment in this stream where a person claiming to have knowledge has passed on an accusation that a police officer beat Arie. While this may be the truth, it is currently hearsay from an anonymous source. My comments were not a supposition about what may have occurred to Arie in police custody.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 5 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Rhys Lewis,

    On the one hand he is saying we should not jump to conclusions about people with autistic spectrum disorders, then on the other he follows the well-worn cliche that cops are thugs who beat people up.

    Perhaps we are not all immune from prejudice after all.

    He was in their custody. At the very, very least, the police would seem to have failed in their duty of care.

    You might also wish to point out where I aired ” the well-worn cliche that cops are thugs who beat people up”. As I have noted, by far the most likely explanation of this man’s injuries is that he was assaulted in custody. That's not the same thing as thinking all police officers are violent thugs, which I assuredly do not think.

    My experience of people with autistic spectrum disorders is that if they are in a unusual situation, particularly where stress triggers are involved, it would not be at all surprising if the person or someone nearby who was unaccustomed to the behaviour received some injuries.

    I’ve lived with aspies for 20 years, and I know a few more outside the family. I submit that my take on this case is more plausible than the one you’ve just made up.

    But if you are such an expert, you’ll also know that most ASD people are truthful souls, often to their own cost. Arie has told his foster sister he was beaten by police officers.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    most ASD people are truthful souls, often to their own cost

    <Nods ruefully>

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 26 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.