Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Me too Compie.
And let no-one say our national anthem is uninspiring ever again - it can be sung incredibly well...
-
But Clinton's record is interesting. She scraped in in her first senatorial race...
55% over 43% isn't really scraped in.
-
d4J - I am not defending this bill.
I am strongly opposed to this bill.
People may use the criminalising of a light smack in proceedings for custody or protection orders. Zealous CYFs workers may use that criminalisation to take children from parents. Etc.
But people charged with assaulting their children by lightly smacking them will not face automatic protection orders.
-
d4j - yes it would appear I do.
Domestic Violence is not an offence under the Domestic Violence Act - the only offences in that act relate to breach of a protection order and publishing a report of a proceeding under the act without leave of the court.
If my girlfriend beats me up she cannot be charged with an offence under the domestic violence act - she can rather be charged with an offence under the Crimes Act (common assault or one of the more serious ones like injuring, etc.) or the Summary Proceedings Act (common assault).
The only way someone can be subjected to protection orders is if a protection order is made against them. The only way people can be charged under the Domestic Violence Act following an assault is if there was already a protection order against them, and that assault was prohibited by it.
The legal basis for my assertions is the Domestic Violence Act, backed up with the Crimes Act and the Summary Offences Act.
-
when a parent is arrested for smacking a child will they be subjected to the same provisions contained in a protection order under the DV Act
D4J - I can.
They will not.
People against whom a protection order is made will be subject to the provisions of protection orders. People who are arrested or charged are not automatically subject to protection orders.
-
the same rights adults have
Except adults or 'planes or ships. Pilots/Captains can use reasonable force to discipline them :)
-
Well, parliament already has a whole heap of laws which are not always applied - most of the crimes act this applies to. You can steal something trivial from work and not get charged, you can kill someone in self defence (sometimes), and you can break the speed limit if you're rushing to the hospital in a life and death situation. They are only sometimes applied, and assault on children, similar to assault on adults, will only sometimes be charged.
I have no problem with laws that are not always applied. Of course Parliament doesn't want theft of a pen prosecuted, but it sometimes wants theft of office supplies to be charged so it hasn't carved out an office supplies exception.
No MP I've heard talk about this bill wants parents who lightly smack to be charged. Ever.
Parliament does not want those who race to the hospital charged, so you can 'break' the speed limit lawfully in the manner you describe because of the defence of necessity; Parliament does not want those who reasonably kill in self-defence charged because the law recognises a defence of use of reasonable force in self-defence (in certain circumstances).
Given that Parliament does not want parents who lightly smack to be charged ever, it should follow suit in this case - an amendment to the law in the form supported by the Law Commission and proposed by Chester Borrows is a good idea.
Parliament wants people to be able to charged with speeding, so there's a law against speeding, but it doesn't want them to be charged with speeding to a hospital, so there's a defence of necessity. In other circumstances it sometimes wants a charge/fine and sometimes not, so it leaves this grey area up to the cops.
Parliament wants people to be able to be charged with assaulting a child, so there's a law prohibiting assault of children, but it doesn't want them to be charged with lightly smacking children in the terms proposed by Borrows, so there should be a defence. In other circumstances it sometimes wants a charge (e.g. a beating) and sometimes not (e.g. a light smack with a wooden spoon - which would not be protected under Borrows' amendment), so it should leave this grey area up to the cops.
-
if we were labelling this bill correctly, it would be the 'removing the reasonable force defence bill'
Except you're still allowed to to use reasonable force:
Against children to prevent or minimise harm, stop crimes or offensive or disruptive behaviour, or perform tasks incidental to good parenting.
Against anyone: (as a pilot or captain) to maintain discipline on an aircraft or ship, or in self-defence etc.
The provisions of the Crimes Act that prohibit murder don't expressly prohibit shooting people, that doesn't mean those provisions aren't anti-shooting. Yes this bill is the "removing correction of children as a defence to assault bill", that does not mean it is not also both anti-thrashing and anti-smacking.
What would an anti-smacking bill look like? Surely exactly like this?
Tell you what, if you don't agree with my views, why don't you come around and smack me to set me right and teach me how to behave?
Well, consent is also a defence...
Also, as I've pointed out earlier, I'm not pro-smacking, much like I'm not pro-smoking (and certainly not pro-smoking-in-a-house-where-children-live). I just don't think either smacking or smoking should be illegal. And I don't think Parliament should pass a law it doesn't want enforced under any circumstance.
-
Three months' prison for anyone smoking.
The police have better things to do than enforce it - so it won't suddenly result in lots of unreasonable prosecutions, but what kind of message are when sending when there are laws permitting the sale of tobacco products, and laws telling people they can smoke inside their homes?
[shrill Helen Lovejoy voice]
"Won't somebody think of the children?!?"
-
the "hitting kids is god's way of showing we love them" lobby had a great success with duping the msm into dubbing this the "anti-smacking" bill though. the ignorant outcry would've been a bit more muffled had it been rightly coined the "anti-thrashing" bill.
It is the anti-smacking bill.
It might not be the send good parents to prison bill.
It might not be the CYFS will take your children bill.But it is not pro-smacking, nor neutral on smacking. Chester Borrows amendment is anti-thrashing. Sue Bradford's bill is anti-thrashing and anti-smacking.
Whilst police will certainly treat smacking and thrashing differently, and so will the courts, this bill does not.
Many of the arguments against the bill are appalling; many in favour nonsense. Calling this bill anti-smacking is neither. This bill is a total legislative ban on smacking. You can certainly argue that such a ban is good, but that doesn't mean it isn't a ban.
Or that the bill isn't anti-smacking. Even if it really is all about just sending a message to NZ parents that message - "look for alternatives to smacking" - is anti-smacking.