Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As for the semantics, a "justification" as you put it isn't an automatic way out of prosecution.
And nor is not being around when the crime was committed and having nothing do with it at all. You can be completely and totally innocent and still have to go through a trial.
I think we're still defining what "fine" is.
I believe that the Otago University longitudinal study looked at it, and found that children who were smacked, but only lightly, were statistically less likely to engage in risky behaviours like smoking or underage drinking or engage in early sexual experiences, or end up in trouble with the law, etc. that those who were violently assaulted as children, or even those who were never smacked.
-
Graeme, I can't help but wonder if your support for the reform isn't colouring your perspective here.
I always wonder if that is the case, but I'd really like to think it isn't. I know my support for election finance reform didn't stop me taking issue with arguments that were arrayed on my own side.
Have I really taken a strong position over whether we should hold this at the election? I do think deliberately timing the referendum to ensure a low turnout is anti-democratic (as some here have suggested). And if it's held other than at the election, I've stated that that will have been at the option (and expense) of the Government, and not because of force of circumstance.
You do point out that there are arguments for separating the two. But I note that those aren't the arguments that have been advanced by the Prime Minister, and (like with smacking) maybe there'd be a little more sympathy for the position if it was being honestly articulated.
The general election is already a massive collection of referenda, holding a CIR risks diverting attention from all these matters to one matter potentially of limited interest outside a particular interest group
I really doubt that this would happen, here particularly. First, generally, the spending limit for those wanting to campaign on the referendum is $50,000. And in the specific instance, the "no" camp knows it's going to win. Thirdly, whether the referendum happens at the election or not, it is going to be an election issue.
-
Graeme, how does that square with the use of that defence having to be tested in court, though? I guess it's just the semantics of "innocent until proven guilty", right?
Not just the semantics. The police can also look at the matter and say - oh yeah, he had a legal defence for "kidnapping" that guy - he was properly placing him under arrest.
It's also the same legal process for getting off because you didn't actually do it. How would this square with the defence of I know he's dead, but I didn't kill him having to be tested in court. If you're justified, you're justified, whether it was a jury or someone else who says you didn't do anything wrong.
Steve, URL for your blog entry?
The link above the reply button on his post will take you to Steve's blog...
-
There are so many countries that simply totally banned hitting kids. No debate. No reaction so why such an issue in NZ?
I can't be sure, but maybe they were honest about it?
Yes, we know that you don't beat your children, and that children who are lightly smacked and no more turn out fine. However, there are some people who go too far, who use the defence in the law to do far far worse. There are children being injured and killed because as a society we accept that some level of force is acceptable against children, and for as long as we have something in our law that says any force is okay, people will look at that and some of them will take it far too far. We need to let everyone know that children are unbeatable, and the only way we can effectively do that is forbidding all force. We're sorry, but the lives of children are at stake here, and we're going to do all that we can to make sure as few children suffer through child abuse as possible - even though it means prohibiting light smacking. The vast vast majority of parents raise their children in a reasonable, measured way, but some don't, and we're going to make sure they realise there time is up.
If that was the line, they would have gotten a lot more public support. Instead they lied and said they weren't making smacking illegal, or that smacking was already illegal, and accused those who disagreed with them of supporting (or being) child-beaters.
Plus, in Sweden at least, when the law was first introduced it was in the family code, not the criminal code, and did not even have the prospect of criminal sanction.
-
At best we have had one that deserved any attention - the very first one on the fire service.
Wasn't the first CIR basically "do you like firefighters?"
And I agree that the law and order one was stuffed, but the 99 MP one was perfectly sensible as a referendum question (I did vote against). The problem is that there was no public debate over it - if you think the $120,000 limit in the EFA is low, well the limit for a CIR is $50,000. If a properly-informed public wants a 99 MP parliament, I don't think we should foist a 120 seat one on them, just because we think we know better.
The lies told to get people to sign.
What lies?
That smacking children, previously legal, is now illegal? No - that one's true.
That parents who smack face the prospect of being investigated, arrested, charged, or convicted? No - true as well.
That they will go to prison for smacking their children? Well that's a lie, but was anyone really claiming it?
-
I suspect that behind the petition is a group who are using the issue to embarrass the Government.
Really? That might be a nice side-effect, but I'm pretty confident they just really really disagree with the Government and want the law changed.
Well, to be truly pedantic, it was illegal before, of the nature of assault. There just happened to be a defence, which has now been removed.
Which was the argument I had a problem with. Because there was a defence (or justification, in technical parlance) there was no illegality - from the Crimes Act:
**Justified**, in relation to any person, means not guilty of an offence and not liable to any civil proceeding
This argument is analogous to saying that people who act in self-defence - or police officers who properly arrest people - are breaking the law. They're not.
-
Graeme are you telling me the lies that Family Fist and co used to beat up this piece of disgraceful hysteria showed a great deal of respect for informed democracy?
Yeah - that a little over the top. Sorry Tom. I'm interested in whether the lies you mention were as big as those told by the pro-repeal crowd, e.g.:
* smacking will not be a criminal offence
* smacking is already a criminal offence
* it's not a big change, we're just removing a defence
* those who oppose this want to be able to beat their children
* we never called it the anti-smacking billI've confronted these idiots collecting signatures (at the BEACH, FFS) and been hissed at for my troubles.
And they were assaulted for theirs. You got off pretty lightly.
-
Big fan of democracy there, Tom? Also, I thought the anti-section 59 crowd was headed by Sue Bradford - she did introduce a bill to repeal section 59 after all.
For me, it was that anti-section 59 that got my goat up. I've some sympathy for the proposition, but you don't endear yourself to me by saying you're not making smacking a criminal offence (they were, and it's now illegal, when it wasn't before), or by saying all of your opponents support child-beating. But lets not get into this now.
Why is spending $10m on a referendum that could easily be run for a few hundred thousand a good idea (other than you disagree with the position of those asking for it)?
-
P.S. John Armstrong points out that the National Government in 1999, setting the date for the "law and order referendum", took a week to decide that it should be at the same time as the election (i.e. at the first cabinet meeting following the presentation of the petition). There seems little reason why you'd take the whole month.
-
__[pot is] demonstrated to be physically more harmful than tobacco__
Hi Matthew. Care to show some evidence for this? The Lancet report I mentioned above estimates that the physical harm from tobacco is higher.
My guess is that you're both right (or, I suppose, both wrong).
The analysis that shows (smoked) marijuana to be more harmful than tobacco contrasts a joint with a cigarette - the carcinogen level of the joint is around 20-30 times (don't quote me) that of the cigarette, etc. (in part caused by the lack of filters in a joint).
The analysis that shows tobacco to be more harmful than pot takes account of the quantity differential. A pack of cigarettes may have about the same carcinogen levels as a single joint, but will be substantially worse for general lung function etc. And while a pack of joints a day would be far worse for you than a pack of cigarettes, people don't smoke a joints in packs.