Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Does that mean that a use of force that has an effect that is more than transitory and trifling, but is nevertheless needed to prevent harm to the child (from "a" above) would be unlawful?
Were Borrow's amendment adopted during the committee of the whole stage - yes.
So say for example force that seriously bruises a child is used, but used in an effort to protect from very serious, immanent danger. The proposed law would say that is a criminal act because the force used was not "transitory or trifling". Unless bad bruising counts as "transitory". In which case that would be equally transitory in cases of correction...
-
And it looks like the kind of people favouring the gang patch ban are also the same kind of people lambasting hate-speech law as thought crime.
Heh. In explaining their support for the patch ban, Hyde waffles on about being a libertarian and how it was the state's fundamental role to protect our freedoms. Yet he concludes that "the wearing of a patch on a jacket is intimidation of law-abiding citizens".
Yet with hate speech - which surely is often intimidating - they say (my emphasis): "Freedom of Speech is not a tool. It's a right of free people. Free Speech is not a tool of attack. It's a means of communication and critical debate. We shouldn't risk punishment for the way others feel."
-
[Tom Semmens, on Trotters blog]: I get the feeling many guilt ridden urban liberals would rather delude themselves gangs are noble savages...
Who are all these deluded guilt ridden liberals who think gangs are noble? Is it you, Craig?
I'll come right out and say it, and obviously put myself off side with all you out of touch PAS urban liberals, but... I don't think gangs are a good thing. There, I said it. Controversial I know.
Seriously, I think Tom's concern that we are somehow supporting gangs per se is misplaced. The point of a pro-civil liberties stance is to say these liberties should be apply even to those we don't like very much. I'm reminded of that Chomsky quote that Craig cited the other day: "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at".
-
it was drafted in the negative "any force which has effect which are more than transitory and trifling is by definition unreasonable".
Does that mean that a use of force that has an effect that is more than transitory and trifling, but is nevertheless needed to prevent harm to the child (from "a" above) would be unlawful?
-
Do we need to change the law to deal with that non-enforcement? Or what about jaywalking?
And the example brought up before, argy bargy during most contact sports. Every little push and shove not covered by the rules of the game is technically an assult.
The thing is that Larry Baldock & so forth must hate the idea that they are breaking the law, because it goes against all the rule-following bones in their bodies. It isn't just that they dislike the idea that smacking should be illegal; it is also that they hate the idea that they should be criminals, because criminals are the Other, and how could they be the Other?
Good point, but I also think for some it just comes down to the perception that "nanny state" is being a busy body and telling people how to raise their children. I wonder what proportion of people who voted 'no' in the referendum would also support the baning of gang patches. Different issues I know, but both involve state interference in peoples lives.
-
principles ... they really are important.
At least Chris agrees with me, then, Chris.
-
Phuck the NZ Geographic Board. These parasites should get real jobs and leave NZ history alone.
Comedy gold.
That's even funnier than Cactus Kate's "Incidentally Keith, I have not finished with you yet" comment.
Both are classic, though.
-
Ugh, sorry - yeah I know the difference. I sometimes catch myself making that mistake and fix it in my proof read, and sometimes not. No edit button and all.
-
if it is a weak right, as you still seem to be maintaining, why would you need more than a weak justification to override it?
You don't.
So why criticse even to the limited degree that you have here? A weak justification is required, and one was supplied – you have no cause for criticism. Indeed, it’s hard to see how you could complain at almost any infringement of your right to free expression, as long as the authorities gave some lame excuse.
That's why it gets overridden all the time.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at. If you are saying there are many specific instances of someone not being able to express themselves perfectly freely, there are endlessly more examples of people saying what they want, unimpeded by the state. The key issue is whether we intend freedom of expression to be one of those important rights, fundamental to good liberal-democracy, that we treat with extra care. Obviously we do, as we put it in an Act.
The 'freedom to express anything you like' is akin to the 'freedom to do anything you like'.Which is one of our much cherished freedoms, caveated only by the entire volume of laws our nation has saying just exactly what it is you are not allowed to do. But, if it's not in there, then you're allowed. Unless we change our minds, as we do every single day.
You're confusing two different types of principals. The freedom to do anything you like is, as you say, just another way of expressing the principal that if something is not expressly baned in the law, one can assume that it is a legal act. That's too broad to be considered a "right" as we're discussing here. And I should hope we don’t change our minds on what we are legally allowed to do every day - a society that capricious would be a real pain to live in!
-
Because Lhaws tells it like it is, and doesn't put up this with any of this PC nonsense!