Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Here's a thought. If it's a decision that you're not directly affected by the consequences of, why not, say, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS?
But but but ... my taxes ... something something.
-
Craig, that wasn't my point but I'll grant that I wasn't careful in my comments. What I mean is that a solution that addresses the objections is readily available, some would argue that it's in place.
As some would with the Civil Union Act?
-
So say for example force that seriously bruises a child is used, but used in an effort to protect from very serious, immanent danger. The proposed law would say that is a criminal act because the force used was not "transitory or trifling". Unless bad bruising counts as "transitory". In which case that would be equally transitory in cases of correction...
One might instead argue self-defence/defence of another, or some sort of defence of 'necessity'. But section 59 (as amended by Chester Borrows) would be of no assistance.
-
Good luck with the new book.
Yeah.
But if the title of this post is a reference to the mid-70s series of BBC television plays, I'm not really getting the allusion =)
-
it pales in significance compared with all manner or issues... issues Roger's apparently incapable of addressing... he's a bit senile yeah, can we say that?
If you prefer to avoid issues and conduct politics based on personalities you say whatever you like about him.
-
Does that mean that a use of force that has an effect that is more than transitory and trifling, but is nevertheless needed to prevent harm to the child (from "a" above) would be unlawful?
Sorry. I get the question now.
Were Borrow's amendment adopted during the committee of the whole stage - yes.
-
Does that mean that a use of force that has an effect that is more than transitory and trifling, but is nevertheless needed to prevent harm to the child (from "a" above) would be unlawful?
No.
"a" above is from the current law (i.e. Sue Bradford's law).
The bit that I was pointing out was drafted in the negative was Chester Borrows' proposed amendment.
-
Graeme,
You do realise that the system I propose is not at all theoretical? It is how many US universities work?
Yes.
*All* you get is the ability to not have your name listed as those who are members of the students assoc.
Then why not let me have it =)
Also, Roger Douglas's VSM bill is very different than Michael Law's VSM bill was. I am surprised that you have not mentioned this.
It's not been particularly relevant to my argument.
I'm not making an argument for the passage of Roger Douglas' bill in its present form, nor an argument for the passage of Roger Douglas' bill amended to match Michael Laws' bill. I've been making an argument about how I consider the present law represents an unjustifiable position, having regard to respect for human rights, and asking that the position be changed to something justifiable.
The form the amendment to the Education Act takes isn't a particular concern of mine. If it means the Education Act no longer breaches the Bill of Rights Act, I shut up about human rights in relation to this matter.
-
Let me see if I understand your "freedom of association" argument.
...
Is that it? What you object to is not the services and fees but the belonging?
I believe you do have it. There are some caveats around other rights that might be implicated depending how it was implemented etc., and there remain arguments about whether that your idea is a good system, but I can't see a freedom of association argument arising when students aren't forced to be members of something.
Suppose every university in the country declare the students assocs disbanded.
Of course, I would have a problem with this. If students want to join students' associations I don't see that the government/university should be stopping them. It wasn't at all central to your argument, but I think it's worth responding to anyway.
-
The problem with the Borrows amendment was that while it looked reasonable, its wording would have allowed, say, hitting a baby in the head, so long as its effect was transitory and trifling.
No more than the current law, which allows hitting a baby in the head for any of the following purposes:
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.even if the effect is more than transitory and trifling.
I also think you've misunderstood the (proposed) effect of Borrows' amendment. It wasn't drafted to say "using force against a child for the purposes of correction is reasonable if the effect is no more than transitory and trifling"; rather it was drafted in the negative "any force which has effect which are more than transitory and trifling is by definition unreasonable".
The law as it was said reasonable force used for correction was lawful and left it up to juries to decide what was reasonable and what wasn't.
The law as it stands says reasonable force used for various purposes other than correction is lawful and leaves it up to juries to decide what is reasonable and what isn't.
Borrows' Amendment states that reasonable force used for correction would be lawful and would leave it up to juries to decide what would be reasonable and what wouldn't, but defines some things as automatically unreasonable.
I do not believe the current law would allow someone to hit a baby in the head - because I will not accept that this could be reasonable. But this applies to Borrows' amendment equally. To get off you still have to convince a finder of fact that hitting a baby in the head is reasonable. It doesn't matter that the effect was only transitory and trifling, it can be unreasonable even though transitory and trifling, so it would be illegal.