Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Riddley, you have my partner's two favourite cats right there. But we can't get either because Raoul The Small And Feisty Tabby would not be happy.
-
I'm not a paranoid parent. As noted earlier, I'm a non-smacker. But I might be paranoid if I didn't have my middle-class pakeha advantage.
-
Yes, there are some things we were not meant to mendel with.
-
The reductio ad absurdum, it hurts.
I take your point Kyle, but the fact is we now have a set of conventions and expectations about the contours of discretion when it comes to the situations your describe. If the police DID start regularly bringing prosecutions for assault in the examples you bring up, we probably would have an outcry at that change in policy, and perhaps a change in the law.
Conventions and expectations have yet to be set in the case at hand, and I think it's quite legitimate to worry about just how they will turn out.
Ben, you're telling me that there's a bunch of bad law out there already, and it's getting bigger. Well, I don't find that comforting, or a reason to not to object to any more.
-
Late starts are dissuading me from seeing bands; I wonder how many other people too?
/raises hand.
I blame the change in the licensing laws. There was a lot wrong with 10 o'clock closing but at least it made sure gigs kicked off on time...
-
Oh, you've heard me say sillier things than that :)
-
Michael, I'm agin laws that enshrine an idea. I think they are likely to be particularly bad laws.
Most PA readers probably agree when that argument is used in other areas - say drug law. It would send an admirable message about the dangers of drug abuse to outlaw party pills, but people like Russell will rightly point out that it's wrong to punish the many in pursuit of a few extreme cases, that laws that are difficult to enforce are a bad idea because they lower respect for the law, and so on.
This law makes any smack (with certain situational exceptions) illegal. Outlawing all smacking to send a message about child abuse is like, I dunno, outlawing all alcohol to send a message about drunkeness.
-
The rugby tackle example is bogus. There have been cases of assault in rugby matches brought to trial - and judges have ruled, depending on the facts, and based on arguments around consent and so on, that there was no assault. That's why the police don't charge in every case of onfield violence - because they don't think they'll win. Not because they are exercising some magic discretionary power with respect to assault. If you get deliberately stomped and there are witnesses and evidence, the police probably will investigate, and you might see a prosecution out of it.
The police investigate if they think there might be enough substance to win in court. In the article I linked to, Greg O'Connor was claiming that smacking would now by police policy be treated as domestic violence, and therefore they would be supposed to investigate all claims, as they are for domestic violence now.
Russell notes that O'Connor is not Mr Credible, and that's a fair point. I'd just say that if the Police Association spokesperson is coming out against new offences for police to prosecute, that's something to think about. Because in other cases they're generally pretty happy about it.
-
I know about those cases. And I wonder just how typical they are, and whether the right answer isn't to narrow the definition of "reasonable".
I read Tapu Misa's article. I like Tapu Misa and I usually agree with what she writes. But she is using the same rhetorical sleight of hand as a lot of other advocates of this bill: talking about excessive violence, drawing lines and sending a message. But what the bill ACTUALLY does is remove your defence to an assault charge if you smack your child. It doesn't criminalise excessive violence, it criminalises all violence, including the most trivial. It must be a cold day in hell this morning, because I find myself agreeing with Tariana Turia and disagreeing with MIsa.
And yes, what I am arguing for is conservatism. That doesn't make it bad - a conservative approach can be correct. In particular one part of old-school conservatism I really like is that the law is not for sending messages, or taking a moral stand, but for narrowly forbidding only those activities we really wish to stop.
I just read this article on Stuff. As I understand it, if someone reports you smacked your child, you will be arrested
"If it is family violence and there is evidence of violence, the policy is quite clear, the offender must be arrested. Greg O'Connor:
"That means an admission or a witness saying they saw someone smack. Police will have no choice but to arrest a person acting on a complaint."
I find that hugely disturbing.
-
plum: key word is "extending". My point is that the state already has substantial powers to intervene, and it isn't clear to me that it needs more.
And yes, Craig is right. Sue Bradford, how ironic.