Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
While it's not surprising, it's the fact that it's still considered acceptable by a lot of people in society to say that about kids, whereas not many people would still think about saying it about an adult. That's the contradiction that needs more highlighting.
Quite possibly, but it's a line of logic I'm sure they (and many/most/almost all) parents would use when talking about non-physical punishments as well. If children are placed in time-out, or told they can't watch TV as a consequence of some action surely we can recognise that those who do [punish their children in such a way] will often/usually/almost always do it because they think their children have been misbehaving?
I file this in the same box as "bloody girlfriend! Should have known not to [do any one of many things] when I've been drinking/had a hard day at work/etc. Then she wouldn't have got hit."
But it would be okay if this guy's girlfriend had been sent to her room or told she couldn't watch TV?
-
surely Franks was arguably commenting on the facts of the case by stating that Weatherston was clearly the killer (remember, before Weatherston admitted the act in court) and that he was likely to manufacture an insanity defence to get off. All while the matter was before the court.
Not just "arguably" - he was clearly commenting on the facts of the case while it was before the court. Is there anything that makes you think that that would be illegal? The courts and police aren't immune from public scrutiny.
-
I note that on the figures they provide there has been one prosecution for "smacking", which I assume to be the Masterton case I've noted before. None for the much-discussed "light smacking" though. There is zero chance of a law change to permit the other behaviours described.
They do argue that "... police are unable to define the difference between "smacking" and "minor acts of physical discipline"", so that takes it up to their nine.
They also note specific cases which have resulted in charges, or children being taken from parents.
... one constant theme in this material appears to be that children are to blame for what happens to them.
Is that too surprising? Even if you disagree with smacking - as we both do - surely we can recognise that those who do smack will often/usually/almost always do it because they think their children have been misbehaving?
-
so much for the sub judice doctrine...
What's Stephen Franks' excuse? He's a lawyer after all.
That he realises the rule doesn't prevent his discussing that? =)
-
Can FF find a put-upon "good parent" who isn't a textbook example of a man with anger problems knocking his kids around?
Family First has a list of about 30 cases that they claim show the law isn't working well. Some may fall within your parameters.
-
I tried quite hard to verify that I was spelling Comeskey's name correctly. I'm pretty sure it's right, though it returns hits for all kinds of variations.
Well, according to the Law Society Register of Lawyers (direct link to result not possible) a Mr Christopher Patrick Comeskey is an Auckland barrister.
-
the amusing feminist corrolary to the gay panic defence is that if it was allowed for women who'd been hit on by men, the streets would be littered with the bodies of straight men.
There are good arguments that the defence of provocation should go, but I'm pretty sure it's not limited to situations where a gay person is the victim.
that line of defence has always bugged me because it seems to disproportionately benefit nice middle-class (and dare I say it, white) law and commerce students. Funny that.
And All Blacks and other professional (or aspiring) sports people...
I'd also note that the Sentencing Act basically requires lesser sentences for those with strong family support.
-
Which also points out the flaw in your argument --- Uyghurs would put Uyghur down, not Chinese (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity.
That's not a flaw in my point, that was my point. In New Zealand (and China) Uyghurs would put down Uyghur as their ethnicity. But the majority Han Chinese might put down Chinese as their ethnicity and deny the use of the term “Chinese” to people in China with full citizenship.
You said:
the problem with `New Zealander' is that denying the use of the term `New Zealander’ to people in New Zealand with full citizenship is pretty dodgy.
If someone is ethnically Uyghur, but nationally Chinese, doesn’t classifying Han people as Chinese deny the use of the term ‘Chinese’ to people with full Chinese citizenship? If you think that “Uyghurs would put Uyghur down, not Chinese (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity” is the answer to the concern I assert you should have (to be consistent) with Chinese Uyghurs, then why isn’t “Māori would put Māori down, not New Zealand (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity” the answer to your concern in relation to New Zealand(er)?
-
Being Chinese is an ethnicity and a nationality (or possibly two if you ask the ROC), but you could be ethnically Chinese without having Chinese nationality.
Han, or Han Chinese, is an ethncity. You can be ethnically Han without having Chinese nationality.
By using Chinese as synonymous with Han, wouldn't we be denying the use of the term 'Chinese' to Uyghurs and others with full citizenship? Pretty dodgy.
Something is either an ethnicity or not. If Australian is an ethnicity, it's an ethnicity everywhere. If people whom you would consider ethnically New Zealand in Australia move to New Zealand they shouldn't be stripped of their ethnicity.
For me, the problem with "New Zealander" is grammatical. New Zealander isn't an adjective.
-
EDIT: I should add my reference. People may wish to look at all the different codes that are used in the fourth-level classification (in appendix 1) - a clear majority are nationalities, but man are there a lot :-)