Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ben, you ask what's permitted. Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 says:
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or
(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.Interpreted very narrowly that would allow a swat on the hand for pulling things off supermarket shelves, or reaching toward a hot stove, or pulling Rover's tail. Those are all situations where there's risk of harm or significantly disruptive behaviour, they all occur in the course of day-to-day parenting, and it would be very unlikely in any of those cases that the triviality bar for prosecution would be even approached, never mind met. But the swat would have to be delivered immediately, as reinforcement of a "Don't do that" message, not given some time later - at which point, of course, it becomes a calculated, corrective action not a "this has to stop right now or you could get hurt, or cause a lot of damage" action.
-
I don't think it's necessarily a poorly worded question either. It does ask, quite clearly "Is smacking sometimes OK?". The results seem to indicate that is exactly what a clear majority of NZers think. This is directly in opposition to the current laws.
Except, Ben, that it's not in opposition at all. The law allows the use of reasonable force as an immediate response to any number of things that may arise during day-to-day parenting. The one thing it doesn't allow is follow-through to the"Just you wait til your father gets home!" threat as a response to misbehaviour. The law doesn't allow cold, calculated force after the event has passed, as well it shouldn't. What the "No" campaign is seeking is a reinstatement of the right to deliver delayed violence in the event of child misbehaviour. How is that possibly constructive, loving parenting?
-
One thing that really disturbed me was that Baldock wants to bring back hitting with instruments, not just using open hands. It's bad enough that a not insignificant number of voters think it's acceptable to use violence to correct your child's misbehaviour, but that they're being lead by the nose by a man who thinks that assault with a weapon is OK is just too much to stomach.
-
But a national servicee (aka Fire Service) would a useful addition to the country surely.
It's hard enough to deal with the medical emergency calls they have now without making NZFS the ambulance provider to the nation. Remember that about 85% of fire fighters in NZ are volunteers, in the traditional sense of the word, ie: they get paid not a skerrick for their efforts and they subsequently must interrupt paid employment to respond to call-outs. Medical co-response is stretching the good-will of a lot of employers to the very limits, and at some point things will snap.
If the Fire Service were to be made the national ambulance provider, there would have to be very clear lines drawn around medical vs fire/rescue. The criteria for having paid medical response staff would have to be vastly different to the criteria for having paid fire/rescue staff - it costs roughly a million dollars a year to keep up a single-appliance station with 24x7 career manning, and consequently very few communities can justify them. Even a "Yellow Watch" working 0700-1700 Monday-Friday comes in at over a quarter-mil. It sounds really easy to make NZFS the ambulance provider for all emergency medical services, but the models overseas all predicate on fully career fire services or fully volunteer. They don't have a mix because the NZ model of a fully national service is unique. That means we'd have to figure it out for ourselves, and when there're lives at stake that's a big risk.
-
Does the acid-throwing on Ablett-Kerr's car count as perverting the course of justice, or is that only during a trial?
It happened during the trial, and my understanding is that it doesn't count at all. She's not a witness, she's not on the jury, and she's not the judge. Therefore it's merely damaging property and probably some kind of threatening behaviour.
-
Rumour has it that there are hieroglyphics that translate as "The youth of today are concerned only with themselves, and will bring about the fall of civilisation." It's clearly not in any way a new concern. Plato and Socrates were obviously way behind the 8-ball on that one
-
You need to look at the timeline a little better. His "stick to your acting" comment was the response to her questioning National's climate change stance. Which is exactly the same as "Shut up and go away". It wasn't said in response to her suggesting that he hadn't treated her very nicely, in which case it would've been a rather more appropriate response.
Yes politics is an unpleasant business, but that doesn't mean the PM has carte blanche to tell citizens that they shouldn't try and engage with the process.
-
Politicians say crap like that 100 times a day.
Not quite so blatantly and publicly they don't. And whether or not they do is irrelevant as to its acceptability. Any politician who thinks that "Shut up and go away" is a reasonable response to a reasonably-stated position needs a healthy dose of clue-by-four.
-
Craig, enough with the apologist attitude already. Castle-Hughes wasn't standing up in a public meeting and shouting at Key, she made a measured comment in the media, attempting to engage the political process as is the absolute right of every citizen, and got a response that sums up as "Shut up and go away." Viewed less charitably, it could even have been taken as "Go away, little girl, and leave the grown-ups to their conversation."
The only time it's marginally acceptable for a politician to say such a thing is when they have someone literally screaming in their face. It's very distinctly unacceptable, and unpalatable, when it comes from the head of the democratic system and is aimed at someone who's making quiet, if uncomfortable, noises about the actions and attitudes of the government.
-
Hang on a minute - people are quite justified in being skeptical of a celebrity's opinion on a topic in which that they are obviously not a recognised expert.
Yes, they are. But Key is absolutely no more of an expert, and quite possibly less of one given how thoroughly condensed and "talking point"ed any material he gets on climate change is - especially since whatever it is he's being shown is biased toward reinforcing his current views, but the look of things.
Key is also in the position of not being the average person. He's got someone with a public profile who's attempting to engage with the political process, and he's saying "Shut up and go away, because you don't know anything." How does he know she doesn't know anything if he's telling her to shut up and go away?