Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As I said, she was responding to the reasons people were giving her.
There's more to the European aspects of our culture than just ancestry, and pointing to us ....ummm,,, what do I call us if NZ European or Pakeha is no good?? I'll stick with NZ European for now... pointing to us NZ Europeans as being "New Zealanders of European descent" is, as I said, an inelegant but effective way of distinguishing our ethnicity from Maori, or Chinese, who are also captured by the term "New Zealander".
my question was whether you could have no ethnicity. I still think that's a valid option.
Sure. So tick "other" and put "none". That's the straight forward way to answer to that effect. Also, some people think ethnicity is largely meaningless today. So don't answer the census question on ethnicity, or tick "other" and write in "non applicable" or "not relevant" or "meaningless" etc. Or, as someone said on the Tze Ming thread, write in "human". That would be the logical way to express an objection to the concept (akin to the "there is only one race, the human race" line).
-
Then there's the Louise Nicholas case. The defendants' convictions were inadmissible, which I'm fine with. But the complainant's entire sexual history was fair game. How is this in any way just? If their previous behaviour isn't relevant to the incidents under question, then surely neither is hers.
Especially when, IIRC, her previous court history was also used to try and show she wasn't trustworthy. Meanwhile, the defendants' previous court history showed some of them guilty of rape.
Someone suggested to me in that case they thought the judge should have been able to apply what I think is referred to as an "opening the door" approach. He or she could have told the defense that some of their line in attacking the character of Nicholas would be ruled inadmissible, unless they in turn waived the inadmissibility of the defendants previous encounters with the legal system.
-
The spelling of Comesk(e)y's name is inconsistent. Even in reports:
Her lawyer Chris Comesky told the judge a drug conviction would ruin her plans to visit her biological father in Greece and hinder her career.
"She is also interested in a career in the tour boat industry," Comeskey said.
Anyone know the correct spelling?
-
...but I found in the Bain Case that there was a lot of editorialization, and more so that when citizens are being served this stuff with their cornflakes that it can be divisive, and in that particular case I felt the high profile and public questioning of the verdict in no way encourages my faith in the system.
If the Bain trials hadn't been followed publicly right from the start, would karem have even got involved?
Also, "...in no way encourages my faith in the system" is kinda begging the question.
-
His client is maintaining his innocence and has indicated he'll appeal. Where's the bit that says the lawyer should disregard this and drop it?
Just my turn of phrase; I don't mean he should drop it completely if the client tells him to appeal and continue that line. (Although, can you appeal in such a way in NZ law? You can't just restate your case again, can you?) But I don't see the point in speaking to the media about the specifics.
The case is over, the verdict is in: guilty. He did his job - next case please.
Or, the case isn't over, and an appeal is on the way. Cool: so why discuss any particular of the appeal in the media in between the trials?
It's one thing as a lawyer to have to stick to your client's obstinate instructions; it's another thing to unnecessarily embrace a 'blame the victim' approach, which he seemed to here.My point is that it may not be his choice. His client may have instructed him on this element too.
The client may have instructed him to keep making that case in the media after the verdict? I suppose he could have - I really never thought of that. If so, fair enough, I guess. His job is to advocate for his client.
-
Are you talking about the client or the lawyer? The client can say what they like. The lawyer is not allowed to substitute their own views for the client's instructions.
Sorry, should have been clearer: the lawyer. Comeskey commented to direct to the media further about the defense case after the trial, instead of just saying "no comment" or commenting only generally. It would be different if he said something like: "my client continues to maintain his innocence, and we are looking at an appeal".
-
Actually, what I'd like is if the lawyer sat down with his client and said, 'look, dude, there's no evidence to support this position, and it's my advice to you that an appeal would be unsuccessful'.
We're never going to know what goes on between a lawyer and their client, and we shouldn't. And I do believe that even the 'obviously guilty' are entitled to the best defence they can get.
As a non-legal-person, I have a dilemma, as Craig touched on above, where that right becomes a right to blame the victim for their own death or to make extremely distressing person comments about them.
As I've said the "extremely distressing person comments" are legit in court if they're part of the case you're lumped with, but he should have dropped it after the verdict (and pending possible appeal).
I wonder if your dilemma isn't related to a concern I've had for a while now: maybe our adversarial system isn't the best option?
-
OK, so we've got to be careful what we say about the man
I've got to be careful. Should this column engender mass fuckwit-calling, I'd hardly be responsible for that.
Yay! Free for all fuckwit calling with Emma's approval!
Where to start...
Seriously, I have some sympathy for the line that Comeskey had to do the best he could with pretty much nothing. If his client maintains he's innocent, Comeskey has to do his job. But as I indicated above, I found his comments to the media after the case unnecessary. Surely if there's a good chance they'll appeal, a 'no comment' would be more judicious?
-
"Nai Yin Xue's defence was that his wife was having kinky sex with other men and died as a result. If his lawyers refuse to make this argument then Nai Yin Xue has grounds for appeal."
That doesn't explain his continued propagation of that line after the case, when speaking to media. Make the case if you must; then accept the verdict and move on - or appeal.
-
None of the reasons *I* want to call myself a New Zealander have anything to do with the cliché that Tze Ming put forward.
She didn’t put forward a cliché, she was responding to actual comments sent to her from people explaining why they didn’t want to call themselves Pakeha or NZ European on the census. And it related to your reason as at one point you said: “I'm not keen that any ethnic group should be forced to be indentified by someone else's label.” In response to which James linked to the Tze Ming blog because it deals (partly) with that issue.
Pakeha might be the right word. But the meaning is too uncertain. From that article, this perhaps expresses my perspective better than I have managed:
"Is it not true that we "become indigenous to New Zealand at the point where our focus of identity and commitment shifts to New Zealand, and away from our countries and cultures of origin" (King, 1999, p235)."
The issue isn’t whether we are indigenous or not; and no one is suggesting we describe our ethnicity categorically as “European” (unless maybe you just got here from Europe). NZ European is basically just “New Zealander of European decent”, and points to those of us whose ancestors are of European origin and who brought a lot of that culture with them and used it to establish their society in this country. I find it a crude term, in a way, but does a nice rough & ready job of distinguishing those of that ethnicity from those who are, say, Maori, or Chinese. Alternatively, ‘Pakeha’ is a great word. I don’t quite buy Jodie Ranford’s contention that Pakeha can’t be seen as an ethnicity. Certainly, if you think ‘Pakeha’ is too widely defined to be an ethnicity, then it doesn’t make sense to use ‘New Zealander’ as your ethnicity instead.