Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
P.S. I avoided making too much of an argument above. As well as having thoughts on topic, you might also have thoughts on the shorter post length :-)
-
George: I'm sure our resident Legal Beagle could come up with all kinds of perfectly sound objections, but how complicated would it really be to fix the election date at (say) the first Saturday in November every three years, unless the Government lost confidence and supply in which case the election would have to be held (say) six weeks after that date?
I'm sure I could come up with some problems, but I very much doubt they're anything that couldn't be worked through. Quite a fan of the idea, myself.
-
I see that the deeply unlovely folks behind the Family Party (you know, Philip Taito Field's crowd)
The Family Party is Destiny. Taito Philip Field is the Pacific Party.
Russell - evil? Seriously? On the day on which Robert Mugabe was 'elected' you're flinging that at a political consultant?
Aren't you just playing their game of heightened rhetoric - making every election seem like the most important ever, a turning-point in national or international history?
-
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.
-
This is incorrect; it has always been illegal to smack your child.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act meant that when a paediatrician notified the police about an assault and if this resulted in a charge being laid and a case going to court, the defendant could successfully argue "reasonable force", which was what Section 59 of the Crimes act provided in those instances.
False.
By analogy:
It has always been illegal to imprison a convicted criminal.
Section 26 of the Crimes Act meant that when a convicted prisoner alleged he was being held against his will (a kidnapping) and if this resulted in a charge being laid and a case going to court, the prison officials could successfully argue they were "executing a lawful sentence" which is what Section 26 of the Crimes Act provided in those instances.
or:
It has always been illegal to arrest someone.
Sections 32 and 39 of the Crimes Act meant that when a police officer arrested someone on suspicion of committing an offence, and used force in affecting that arrest when that person alleged an assault and if this resulted in a charge being laid and a case going to court, the police officer could successfully argue they were "arresting them on suspicion of committing an offence" and were using "reasonable force" to effect that arrest, which is what Sections 32 and 39 of the Crimes Act meant in those instances.
This argument has always been bunk. And it was one of the reasons I got really annoyed with the pro-repeal crowd. They had plenty of great arguments to resort to without these falsehoods, yet they really didn't want to engage with anyone. Smacking children for the purposes of correction was always an assault, but it was legal.
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.
-
While its clearer than most, I'd still prefer an actual bill. it's not that hard, and the Office of the Clerk should be there to help.
You want non-binding referendums on actual legislation?
The commencing of the 99-MP petition should have resulted in the drafting of a bill to reduce the size of Parliament to 99 that we'd have gotten to vote in favour of or against which would then not become law even if everyone wanted it to?
For exercises is futility that takes the cake.
-
if proponents of the right to thump kids are allowed stupid and emotive names for legislation, so am I.
Given the "anti-smacking bill" was Sue Bradford's name for the legislation, I think you may owe her an apology.
-
If it's actually a referendum then it should have legal powers, and the question should go through a proper process (like select committee, clerks etc) so that it actually makes sense if we vote it in.
Proposed CIR questions do go through a proper process.
When someone makes a proposal to start a CIR petition, he or she applies to the Clerk of the House of Representatives with proposed wording for the question.
The Clerk then publicises the question and invites public comment. The comments are made available to the petitioner and to the public. The Clerk then consults with the petitioner and anyone else he or she thinks might be helpful. And then the Clerk formulates the precise question, bearing in mind the question originally sought, the submissions, the views of the petitioner and those other people and the need to ensure the question:
Shall be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum; and
Shall be such as to ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.
-
(It's not illegal to throw things at the television is it? Yet?)
Is it your television? Or is it any TV you see him on?
Cos that could be a problem.
-
As I understand it, parliament after 1999 passed a law to avoid having CIR and elections at the same time, because 1999 was a bit of a mess. Not just as an option if they couldn't do it at the same time, but as a preference.
If they'd wanted to do that, they'd have simply replaced the option of holding a vote at an election with postal voting.
Indeed, the law as amended specifically allows for Parliament to override the decision of the Cabinet to hold a postal ballot to require, if there's a snap election. Parliament can insist that the last day for sending in postal ballots on the referendum is the polling day. There is still a pretty strong presumption that the two should be held concurrently.