Did anyone see the Nightline TV3 coverage of this most recent case last night? It was misleading to say the least, very disappointing. They did a voiceover that completely misrepresented the facts of the case, with pictures of people lightly smacking children on the hand or bottom. Definitely gave the impression that was the case here, when clearly it was not.
I find this whole issue about closely "supervising" those in the right (wrong?) demographic a bit worrying. It seems to me that some of those arguing for this monitoring are also those fundamentally opposed to any thing of the kind for people in their own demographic. It's a "privilege" they only want to apply to those who are Other...
Oh dear insider outsider, you have just outted yourself as someone who hasn't read Mr Slack's excellent book (the name of which escapes me at this precise moment, but it starts with "Bullshit, Backlash and...").
Dave, what Russell said. I was trying to come up with a way to express my horror at what you are writing on this issue, but Mr Brown has done it for me.
I sincerely hope that I get through my whole life without bruising anyone else (bar some kind of in extremis situation where I am rescuing them from a falling off a burning building into a pirahna tank of course - some bruising might be the inadvertent result of my heroic deeds in such a case).
I just cannot imagine finding myself in a situation where I am advocating for a law to be allowed to hit people, PARTICULARLY children.
Sorry that was an awfully mangled sentence, let's try again:
Tom, I completely agree. My issue is that it seems to me to be Dave's contention that the person at fault here is not the one who assaulted the child, but the person who blew the whistle on it.
Tom, I completely agree. My issue is with what I perceive to be Dave's characterisation that the person at fault here is in fact not the only who assaulted the child, but the person who blew the whistle on it.
So Dave, your argument appears to be: Bruising bad, but in this case not caused by smacking - therefore s59 repeal not necessary.
My recollection is that s59 was a defence not for smacking, or any form of assault light or otherwise on the posterior. s59 was a defence of the use of force by parents seeking to undertake corrective discipline. No reference of bottoms whatsoever, IIRC.
It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of case where in the past a parent could have successfully used s59 as a defence but they can't now. You seem to be arguing that they couldn't have used s59 because the bruising wasn't a result of smacking?
Also, not really appreciating the subtext of this comment from you:
Perhaps if the woman and her huysgand werent having a few difficulties there would not have been a pic taken and passed around.
The implication being that the person at fault here, the person who has created this conviction, is in fact the mother of the child.
I heard on the 5pm news on RNZ that the plan is to get all the parties' general secretaries together to talk about how the law is intended to be interpreted, so that everyone has the same understanding, and some input into that understanding. That sounds like a good idea to me, I hope particular parties won't boycott that process just to grandstand. I do tend to think that if opportunities are offered to fix something if you then stick your fingers in your ears and go "nah nah nah I'm not listening and you can't make me," complete with stamping feet, then you kind of forfeited your right to be taken seriously.
That said I would hope that they might broaden the group involved in this process to include organisations that have an advocacy role. After all the EFB isn't just about the financing and electoral speech of political parties.
Gee it seems everyone is an AA member! Not me, although my partner is I admit. Anyway, if the AA had an article/advert/whatever in their magazine then that wouldn't be covered by the law because that would be communication with their membership. If they plastered the same information on a billboard or bought a full page ad in the Herald then it would come within the limits, that's my understanding. There is no limitation on electoral speech within an organisation, where it is communicating with its own membership, I think?
Also, does anyone else look at the title of this post and keep thinking "Meet the New Bob, Same as the Old Bob"? I can't get it out of my head.
Shep, I wasn't having a go at you for your pseudonymous nature at all - just pointing out that what looks like a real name (for the purposes of taking the moral high ground about not being anon, not that you did) may not be, but who really knows in most cases?
Ok, thanks for the clarifications, I feel better. Not sure why I cared, seeing as how I am sans blog, but it just all seemed a bit absurd.
On the whole my position is that I would like to know who is funding and making electoral speech. I have no problem with a law that will make that more transparent. What I was worried about was little Jo Blogger who really is just acting as an individual, even if they are a party member, and had good reasons for keeping their name to themselves (and I would say it would be a pretty brave political blogger who would slather their private address all over anything, pseudonym or otherwise).