Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: A draft submission on the…, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Your headings “Arbitrariness in sentencing dates” and “Home detention” are mixed up.
Happily that, and the erstwhile error in the headline are artefacts of the copy paste process, and not errors in the submission itself.
I haven’t written anything yet. Can I join yours?
Yes.
-
Legal Beagle: Why the censor's total ban…, in reply to Sacha,
given the woeful behaviour of editors and publishers in recent years, why trust them to judge what to do with material carefully crafted to incite violent hatred of a certain subsection of people?
The censor seems to, although he has also cautioned them to take care.
He's the expert, I'm happy to take him at his word. -
Legal Beagle: Why the censor's total ban…, in reply to Simon Armstrong,
If you were trying to make a coherent argument I lost you from your comparison to child porn
It's not my comparison. That's what Parliament has said.
-
Legal Beagle: The climate strike and the…, in reply to Walter Nicholls,
As to voting at 14, I’ll be cynical again and wonder if anyone has done research into the correlation of 14-17 year-olds’ voting preferences with that of their parents. It’s not the best argument for enfranchising this age group , but at worst the voting preference of parents with teenagers will get a small boost.
I'm not supporting giving votes to 14-17 year-olds because I think they'll vote a particular way. I support this because I think they should be allowed to have a say in the future.
-
Just posting a comment so I can turn on email notifications to any comments :-)
-
But almost as important is the fact that the question did not explicitly seek such a repeal. It was ambiguous; it begged an opinion without actually proposing an action.
It would have been odd for the question to seek repeal. The question for the referendum and proceess for holding it started well before the law was passed.
-
Legal Beagle: The Ray Avery case; or…, in reply to Rick Shera,
In relation the criminal side of things, I agree it’s strange that s22 (criminal harm offence) doesn’t have an express reference to NZBORA when it’ll often be a more important consideration there than in the civil jurisdiction under s19.
I don’t think it's strange. Courts are always required to act consistently with the Bill of Rights. It’s strange when they include it, as though a Court doesn’t have to act consistently with the Bill of Rights when it’s considering a charge of offensive language! I considered that maybe it was explicitly included because of doubt that the approved agency might not be covered, as it doesn’t really exercise any state powers.
As for defences, I agree we’ll probably get there, and that Courts will allow a defence of publication in the public interest, but, for example, it strikes me as highly odd that to get civil relief you have to establish a breach of one of the communication principles in the act, but that doesn’t apply to the criminal offence. If you intend to cause harm in which way which breaches none of the principles in the act, you can still be criminally liable, even though the victim could not obtain a take down order.
-
Awfully nice of him to use FYI, but I suspect you'll be hearing from the government departments soon (if indeed you had such correspondence)
-
Legal Beagle: A submission on the…, in reply to izogi,
Has any new party ever entered parliament under MMP without either a defecting MP or benevolent (but really strategic) help from a big party that's more interested in gaming the system?
Every successful new party has had an existing or former MP in it.
Benevolent help has never worked by itself.
-
Legal Beagle: A Small Official…, in reply to FletcherB,
I understand that that's kind of what happened. The formal reply to the request was as tweeted, which was followed up by a call from someone in the media team saying that the information did not exist (which is a proper ground under the OIA to refuse to release information. The reply was apparently as it was as they "didn't want to set a precedent".
I'm not sure it would have, and am also aware of a time the Chief Justice responded to an OIA request.