Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Big Norms

88 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Steve Parks,

    no such provision exists to excuse the assault of anyone else

    Well - there's also passengers on aircraft and on ships (whose pilots and masters are entitled to use reasonable force to maintain discipline).

    And everyone in the country (because police officers are entitled to use reasonable force to effect an arrest).

    etc.

    Yet there are also other situations whereby an assault has technically taken place, and for which there is no special provision for a defence (as is the case with smacking now that section 59 has been repealed).

    Yet society still functions just fine, with the sort of understanding of justice slarty was referring to, I guess.

    Does the crimes act have a section allowing for the assaults that technically take place often in contact sports? Running at someone and tackling them to the ground is an assault, right?

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1164 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    Does the crimes act have a section allowing for the assaults that technically take place often in contact sports? Running at someone and tackling them to the ground is an assault, right?

    Pretty much.

    **20 General rule as to justifications**

    (1) All rules and principles of the common law which render any circumstances a justification or excuse for any act or omission, or a defence to any charge, shall remain in force and apply in respect of a charge of any offence, whether under this Act or under any other enactment, except so far as they are altered by or are inconsistent with this Act or any other enactment.

    Consent is a common law defence to pretty much most assaults (although you cannot consent to your own death or wounding). And consent is either implied or express in the playing of a contact sport.

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

  • Paul Williams,

    I didn't get to hear Nandor's speech but have just seen some of it on the NZ Herald site; classy. Parliament is much poorer for his departure.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • andin,

    Lyndsay Freer HMM.

    So she stood in fellowship with her muslim brothers and sisters over the danish cartoons.
    Hope she's not expecting the favour to be returned.

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Lyndsay Freer HMM.

    So she stood in fellowship with her muslim brothers and sisters over the danish cartoons.

    Hope she's not expecting the favour to be returned.

    Perhaps you should consult the newspapers rather than your own prejudices then.

    The NZ Muslim Council publicly pitched in behind the Catholics over the 'Bloody Mary' episode of South Park.

    The Scientologists on the other hand ... well, nobody loves them ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I didn't get to hear Nandor's speech but have just seen some of it on the NZ Herald site; classy. Parliament is much poorer for his departure.

    It's available in full on the home page here:

    http://www.greens.org.nz/home.shtml

    I'm never going to agree with Nandor on everything, but I respect him as someone who's prepared to think, rather than simply react.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22756 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    I'm never going to agree with Nandor on everything, but I respect him as someone who's prepared to think, rather than simply react.

    I feel much the same. He also appears to have a genuine respect for others which I admire too.

    Thanks for the link.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    The NZ Muslim Council publicly pitched in behind the Catholics over the 'Bloody Mary' episode of South Park.

    And while I'm a little diffident about praising people for holding protest marches rather than rioting and issuing death threats (on the Chris Rock principle that you don't praise people for just doing what sane people should), I get rather nervous seeing 'Catholics' and 'Muslims" talked about as a homogeneous mass, or various groups being givien designated spokesman status by lazy media organisations.

    Personally, I thought that episode of South Park was wonderfully taking the piss (in its typically rude, crude and in your face way) out of idolatry -- which, as far as I'm aware, both Catholic and Muslim doctrine abhors. And I certainly have an enormous sympathy with the notion that there's no quick fix -- no bleeding statue, no group or self-help bumper sticker slogan -- for dealing with problems in life, such as alcohol abuse.

    And, if my memory serves, I find it rather ironic that Mrs Freer (on behalf of her employers) were quite happy to encourage people to see Mel Gibson's nauseating explicit and violent wodge of Jesus snuff. (Though I don't think they among the folks seeking to have the film's R16 rating lowered.)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • andin,

    Perhaps you should consult the newspapers rather than your own prejudices then

    Ah yes my "prejudices", which you must know all about.

    Yes it was back in the heady days of Feb 2006 when this period of ecumenical cooperation reached that particular zenith within a couple of weeks of each other, I believe.
    Pity this opportunity to put this brand of dangerous nonsense under the spotlight was allowed to pass, assisted by howlings of dont upset the religious.

    And Mrs Freer, having a pleasant persona does not make you reasoned or rational.

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Eade,

    nandors speech was great...but needed to be delivered with more anger...any why was everybody laughing? He was telling them he hates this place.

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Eade,

    nandors speech was great...but needed to be delivered with more anger...and why was everybody laughing?

    He was telling them he hates this place.

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    I see Russell Normans' announced himself in Parliament by attacking the Government over funding for public transport. I'm a big fan of public transport myself; take it most days in Sydney where, despite mine and other's moaning, it's pretty good. NZ's is not, I agree, but I wonder at the tactical forethough implicit in Dr Norman's approach. Clearly Annette King did too.

    Is Norman going to be the bad-cop in the run-up to the election? Oh well. He'll find he needs to be a bit more sophisticated than he was yesterday but perhaps that's just nerves. Did the Greens really think Norman was a better long-term option that Nandor?

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Is Norman going to be the bad-cop in the run-up to the election? Oh well. He'll find he needs to be a bit more sophisticated than he was yesterday but perhaps that's just nerves.

    Thought so too.Then I wondered if Nandor was just as idealistic when he entered Parliament, afterall he did think all politicians were bastards and set out to make change.I suspect he was less sophisticated also. On Backbenchers (TVNZ6) Russell appeared quite aggressive but it was at other parties ,not necessarily personal. I do hope it was nerves.

    Did the Greens really think Norman was a better long-term option that Nandor?

    I don't think so, but Nandor chose to exit, so Greens had no choice. I think Nandor has managed to leave with dignity which could be a lesson for many politicians:)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.