Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
I note too that soon we will be asked in a referendum :
'“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
*sigh*
-
This case precisely shows why the s59 repeal was so necessary. It seems fairly plausible that he may have got away with punching his 4 year old in the face under the old laws.
I'm not sure I agree. It's hard to see how anyone could argue punching a child in the face was reasonable force.As Fletcher has noted, people argued that hitting a child with a bullwhip was reasonable force, and it worked. Before that case, would you have said: "It's hard to see how anyone could argue hitting a child with a bullwhip was reasonable force"?
And some people on Your Views are arguing that the conviction was too much:
"Realist (Auckland)
PC world gone mad. And what double standards. If this is 'assault' then I expect boys who fight at school to be prosecuted. Also rugby players who throw a punch - often see by us all on TV. I want them in court too for the sake of fairness.... Who was injured? Who needed medical attention? Sorry, I cant see that this is assault at all. It's BS".
-
A smack on the hand with a plastic spatula then they get a cuddle afterwards.
And so a new generation of BDSM enthusiasts is formed.
There is a link between BDSM and having been lovingly smacked as a child, as you can read on The Yes Vote web site.
-
then I expect boys who fight at school to be prosecuted. Also rugby players who throw a punch - often see by us all on TV. I want them in court too for the sake of fairness.
Seems quite reasonable to me ... just like you shouldn't be hitting your kids you should be teaching them to not be hitting others too .... this "a little bit of violence" is normal and OK is what needs to be nipped in the bud
-
-
err - that should be:
"a little bit of violence is normal and OK" is what needs to be nipped in the bud
-
There is a link between BDSM and having been lovingly smacked as a child, as you can read on The Yes Vote web site.
What it say on the yes vote webiste is:
Corporal punishment before age 12 significantly increases the probability of future verbal and physical sexual coersion [sic]
I suggest you learn the difference between 'coercion' and 'consensual' before you get yourself in a lot of trouble.
-
Dave Moskovitz:
The link refers to risky sexual behaviour... Risky sexual behaviour like same-sex stuff? Or safe, sane, consensual BDSM?
Come on man, I agree with your position re smacking, don't use Wishartian innuendo to support it.
Upthread I was making a (poor taste) joke, you appear to be serious. Emma, this makes my apology even more abject, if this is the sort of thing that is regularly trotted out (and believed!).
-
McCroskie writes it down
Without wishing to deprive Scoop of any page views, here's part of it:
Family First NZ says that if Christchurch father Jimmy Mason has been found guilty of punching his son in the face, then his conviction is completely justified.
"But the jury may have decided that it was only an ear flick, which Jimmy Mason himself admitted doing," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
"The jury may not have believed that a punch happened, but had to convict the father for the ear flick because it was deemed correction."
This is so unbelievably disingenuous, I can barely convey my contempt for it.
But I'll try: The judge made a point of observing that the jury had accepted the evidence of witnesses. The witnesses said Mason punched his four year-old in the face with a closed fist, and was unrepentant it about after the fact.
I didn't really think my disgust for McCoskrie could get any greater. But it has. Yet again, he has put up his hand as an enabler of child abuse. There is no other way of seeing it.
-
Hmm! Dressing for dinner? It could be embarrassing if you didn't, especially if the neighbours call by unexpectedly. You could also drop bits of food in the most awkward places.
I guess that the Mason case just demonstrates the impossibility of changing the minds of idealogues, despite contrary evidence staring them in the face.
-
Emma, this makes my apology even more abject, if this is the sort of thing that is regularly trotted out (and believed!).
It's the polite end. It's usually followed by being patronised and then ignored when you have the guts to stand up and say 'actually, I was never smacked as a child, not once, and that still wouldn't explain the thing with the ropes'.
A feminist academic who blogs a lot about BDSM (her id is ninedeuce, I'm not linking to her) actually said that if people really genuinely DID have BDSM desires that were natural to them, they should commit suicide.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of nice, genuine people think they know what BDSM is, and don't. I guess I should attempt to fix that.
I do, however, at least have The Renegade on my side:
Sure, I’ve seen it before, I am sure I will see it again, but it is really, really standing out this time. That thing? The outcry- sometimes made with reason, sometimes with an attempt to appeal to empathy, sometimes made with resounding rage- on the part of BDSM participants to be seen as…
Human.
Not deluded, not programmed, not victims, or trapped, or insane or stupid, not pathetic, not wicked, not weak, but human.
Like everyone else.
-
I agree all the law change did was remove a defence and this seems lost on nearly everyone.
The mass of the debate in the media is mindless and makes no difference to anything at all; the bulk of debate is centred on nothing and addresses no real issue.
Most of the pundits on either side are to busy admiring and polishing their own view to the extent they haven’t got to grips with anything other than themselves.
TV and Radio have over the last year spent a lot of time interviewing or promoting comment from people who have clearly not even read the law. Research budgets must be limited to $1.60 a day – which covers the cost of the Herald.
-
Possibly best discussed somewhere else, Emma (to avoid complete and total threadjacking), but I'd love to know a) if you've read Jacqueline Carey and b) what you think of her books :). There isn't a PM function on PA System, is there?
-
"The jury may not have believed that a punch happened, but had to convict the father for the ear flick because it was deemed correction."
Surely this is some sort of contempt of court?
-
Heh, I can take a minute to say, I LOVE Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel books (her other fantasy, not so much). For someone who didn't know anything at all about BDSM they might promote a few misunderstandings, but she represents the emotional and physiological experience very well.
-
Surely this is some sort of contempt of court?
Contempt for commenting on what the jury did or thought? It's not contempt. It's freedom of speech.
-
Eddie, Rich: I think David M is referring to this sentence:
"Many people who condone smacking their children say that it should only be done lovingly, but Straus’s research shows that the link between corporal punishment and masochistic sex is greatest when the parents are warm and loving."
-
Contempt for commenting on what the jury did or thought? It's not contempt. It's freedom of speech.
Quite. Even rank idiots have that right.
-
Quite. Even rank idiots have that right.
Even Rankin idiots.
Oops, wrong thread.
-
The mass of the debate in the media is mindless and makes no difference to anything at all; the bulk of debate is centred on nothing and addresses no real issue.
I don't think I'm the only person who checked out of the whole S. 59 argument when it seemed compulsory to choose between the Marquis De Sade or Karl Marx.
Surely this is some sort of contempt of court?
If it is, then a lot of people around here who were speculating on the thought processes of the jury in the Rickards Case (including myself) are too.
Quite. Even rank idiots have that right.
But nobody is obliged to enable them with a platform. Sorry, I don't mean to crush anyone's dissent here but isn't it time for journalists to take Family First, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and my old chum Greg O'Connor off the speed dial until they STOP MAKING SHIT UP.
-
I agree all the law change did was remove a defence and this seems lost on nearly everyone.
Because it entirely misses the point.
The existence of defences cannot be treated as an entirely separate matter from the offences to which they are a defence.
Yes, the use of any force falls within the definition of assault. But not all uses of force are or have been criminal.
Smacking was generally legal because there was a defence. Surgery is generally legal because there is a defence.
-
But nobody is obliged to enable them with a platform. Sorry, I don't mean to crush anyone's dissent here but isn't it time for journalists to take Family First, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and my old chum Greg O'Connor off the speed dial until they STOP MAKING SHIT UP.
Wow, I've had a brilliant idea -- a cross-media zero tolerance policy for bullshit and bullshitters. Of course, it would require putting a good chunk of their staff on gardening leave but leading by example can't be a bad thing. :)
-
"Sorry, guys, I don't find it funny. Perhaps because of the number of times any BDSMer will be told they MUST have been abused as a child."
forgive me but i do not understand what is meant here, exactly!
"..the numberr of times ANY BDSMer will be told.." told by whom?this doesn't correspond to much in my own experience!
-
Smacking was generally legal because there was a defence.
Ignorant semantic-philosophical question: was the defence as coded in s.59 keyed to the target of the smack, i.e. it was legal because they were a minor? Or was it keyed to the deliverer of the smack, i.e. it was legal because the perpetrator was a parent?
And/or was the defence also applicable inside a broader caregiving relationship? (Grandparent, babysitting auntie, etc).
I'm just thinking that substituting "addled elderly relative" for "child" might have rendered most of the objections to the repeal pretty moot. As in, if you wouldn't wallop your Alzheimic great-aunt to teach her not to spill her soup or talk back to you, you shouldn't do it to a four year old...
(Not that elder abuse doesn't happen; just that people don't phone talkback shows to happily defend their right to smack granddad for stealing bickies off the bench or wandering down to the dairy wearing only a singlet, y'know?).
-
I think you're wrong AND we're talking at cross-purposes.
"In general, acting in self defence is currently legal, there are hoops one needs to jump through to be legally be "acting in self defence" - the force used must be reasonable in the circumstances, etc. - but, in general, force used in self defence is legal."
It cannot be legal before the legal hoops have been jumped through. You're argument makes it sound legal from the outset.
The accused is charged with assault on a child. The accused is of course innocent but has been arrested and charged. The action is not legal until the trier of fact (and in the case of self-defence at least, the trier of law) are satisfied that the the defendant has established the factual and legal requirements of the defence. If they are so satisfied, then no crime.
You're argument makes it sound as if the action is legal and then there are some legal hoops. Wrong. Legal hoops -- then legality.
So, in effect, you're committing the same flaw of reasoning as that newspaper in Auckland.
"As, previously, parental smacking was legal - there were hoops (reasonableness of force in the circumstances, purpose of the force being corrective, etc.) - but, in general, parental smacking was legal."
Again, legal provided the defence was established and not before. I suppose, using the principle of charity, that you might be arguing that it was not illegal because a judge/jury had not pronounced on the guilt of the accused. However, assault/murder is still an indictable offence under the Crimes Act and anyone arrested would have shown probable cause or a warrant would have convinced a judge that there was a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. So yes, in reality, at the time of the offence the action was allegedly illegal.
However, that does not mean that the action was legal at the time it was committed because no one had decided that issue yet -- hundreds of years of settled law or not.
"The idea that the amendment to section 59 was only repealing a defence (and that smacking was always illegal, just that there was a defence) goes against several hundred years of settled law. If there is a full defence (cf. provocation), there is no crime. Smacking (where that smacking was reasonable in the cirucmstances, etc. etc.) used to be legal, it is no longer."
No, it was illegal. The law simply provided a defence to the accused to argue that the actionw as justified. Assault was still a crime regardless of whatever defences were available. Yet I repeat myself...
A defendant could still argue compulsion against a charge of assaulting a child. Does the existence of compulsion as a potential defence now make smaking legal again. On your argument, it would have to. You've gotta wear that one at the very least.
I'm not sure how much further I can take this. Simply put, the existence of a defence does not a legal action make -- that is until the defence has been run successfully.
"You can write < quote> in front of it and< /quote> after the bit you're quoting (but without the additional spaces. You can copy these from the left of the comment box (which also explains how to do links, bold, and italics)."
Thanks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.