David:

Self-definition is perilous but I do see myself as a pragmatist. I have given careful thought to what, if anything, I would be prepared to die in a ditch for.

The Bill at present before Parliament is not Sue Bradford's but the Select Committee's modification. It is already a compromise, something that I haven't seen recognised by the media. There are those who believe it is a compromise too far and that the best and simplest thing would have been to simply repeal S59 and place children on the same footing in relation to assault as adults. Police prosecution rules and long-standing precedent in law against pursuing trivial things would have dealt with the 'criminalisation' issue as it did in the case of the Tana Umaga Christchurch handbagging incident. That is even supposing a minor assault on a child had got to the point of someone drawing it to the Police's attention.

I can sympathise with the purist repeal view but don't believe it was acceptable to the majority. I like to believe that New Zealanders are fundamentally decent people and if they are fully informed about the operation and consequences of the present Bill, a majority will support it. Perhaps in that respect I'm an idealist.

You might ask if Police are not going to prosecute minor assaults, what's the point of repealing the law anyway and the answer from my perspective is that a law that singles out children as legitimate targets of assault is an unjust law, contributes to their status as chattels and makes them vulnerable.

Where the voting age should be set is another issue but let's not get into that.

I believe clever lawyers would soon have juries interpreting Chester Borrows proposed amendments in much the same way as the present law is interpreted.

What is the difference between democracy and mob rule?

David:

I like your careful argument and the reference back to the wording of the present law, the Bill and Chester's proposed amendments. However, it all unravels a bit at the end I believe. Sue Bradford's withdrawal of the Bill if Chester Borrows' amendments are passed, won't be a result of a hissy fit. It will be a long-planned and justified withdrawal in the face of amendments which nullify the effect and purpose of the Bill.

It may seem a small matter but the difference is the acceptance of 'correction' as a motive for force in Chester Borrows' amendments and its prohibition in the Bill. On the one side is a view of children as unworthy of full human rights status in protection from assault and on the other is full human rights status with acknowledgement of the realities of being a parent.

Once 'correction' is allowed as a purpose the legal argument if the matter is brought to court hinges on how much injury is permissible and Chester Borrows' definition (trivial and trifling) is not substantially different from the status quo (reasonable in the circumstances).