Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ooops, didn't notice.
I feel all dirty now.
Thank God. I thought you'd become one of Them.
-
Given no tax sweeties, and Garret's wanting to stop them packin' heat, we may see cleavage before the next election. (phnaar, phnaar)
The press release you linked to is from the Libertarianz. It's possibly not the most authoritative source for what ACT and Garrett are doing.
But you're right about the tension between the free-market and libertarian elements of ACT and the law and order ones. ACT caucus meetings must be fun.
-
Couldn't we lock the clowns in..?
We will, comrade, we will. As soon as our Glorious Socialist Revolution is complete we will send these reactionaries to appropriate "education centres".
-
I looked over at Kiwiblog, but with DPF in the lockup, it's just the clowns in at the moment.
Thankfully DPF doesn't need to worry about leaving his site unmonitored, as he doesn't seem to have a moderation policy.
-
There could be a business opportunity in Steve's idea though. A guide to what is and what isn't appropriate would probably end up being the size of the Dog And Lemon Guide. And need updating every year.
-
Workable?
The difficulty with trying to set an acceptable standard is that you would need to not just define the type of acceptable action, but also the amount of force to be used, and the frequency of use.
An occasional light slap might not cause permanent trauma, but 50 light slaps a day for a year might.
-
I'll continue with the assault analogy, though some people have pointed out that maybe the sportsfield is not the best analogy to apply (ie the small matter of consent).
There are other examples of petty assault that don't involve consent. Here's an example of an assault that Parliament would surely never want to see prosecuted: you're minding your own business standing on the escalator at the mall. Some impatient clown shoves past you, causing you momentary discomfort and annoyance. An assault? Probably. Will the police prosecute if you complain? Surely not.
If the guy shoved his fist in your face as he passed, however, then the police would act.
So couldn't you argue that by passing a law criminalising all perpetrators of minor and inconsequential assaults (absent a defence), Parliament passed a law that it never intended should be used?
So is section 59 really so remarkable?
-
Parliament knew when it passed the amendment to section 59 that any parent who lightly smacked a child would be committing a criminal offence (an offence not being committed prior to the amendment); Parliament did not want those parents charged, and it did not want the law it was passing enforced. When Parliament does that, the rule of law is diminished. In my opinion it should have passed a law that it would have been happy to see enforced instead.
I understand your argument, though I don't agree with it. The crimnal law has always operated this way.
For example, by law anyone who shoves another person has arguably committed an assault, unless a defence exists. And yet Parliament surely never intended that a person who shoved another in an inconsequential manner (say during a rugby field scuffle) should be hauled before the courts. In such circumstances the police will just exercise their discretion not to prosecute.
-
To be fair, Graeme's raised it recently as well. I think it's actually their best point.
How so? Section 59(4) was only stuck in at the last minute as a compromise. Or perceived compromise. Because I can't see it actually changes a thing. Though as political moves go, it was smart.
We could debate whether Parliament should ever amend legislation to insert redundant provisions (God, wouldn't that be a tedious debate?), but it happens. Parliament passes bad or unnecessary laws all the time, often in haste. Dave may have raised the issue to "prove" that section 59's bad law, but it's a distraction.
-
Since when has a law been made on the basis that it is not enforced? Answer that.
Paul's already explained this. There is nothing unique in the police having discretion whether to prosecute. It happens all the time. Surely you must know that. So why raise it?