Southerly: If You Don't Hit Them, You Must Hate Them
106 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
merc,
Sadly, that is what got them back to Blighty, the smell of eels and chips. The next wave to be sent out secured all the chutney, between pukka's.
-
hmm, they are growing in strength then. nolonger thin, pale and whiney?
-
Kyle: It's pointless playng the "it's only a defence" game. If you crimialize possession of a drug but throw in a clause later about "reasonable amounts for personal use" not resulting in anyone going to prison, rather than sticking it in the original clause, then you've decriminalized possession of reasonable amounts etc.. It's just a different way of getting the same thing. The left would see this on any other issue (and does in fact do so), I swear....
Moreover, s59 is clustered together with s 60 ("Discipline on Ship or Aircraft"). The heading over both clauses is Powers of Discipline. Please check this out, here. Maybe you've been misled about this.
The point is clear: you are a law to your child, just as the Captain of the ship is law to everyone on the ship. [Lefties don't like that assertion of law/authority which is why they want it out and can't compromise a la Borrows! Don't kid yourself.] In both cases it's a positive power and authority being acknowledged.Of course, even if the legislation hadn't gone that extra step to be completely clear, by my first point, there would still have been genuine legalization.
Your speeding case has too many variants to consider. Sorry.
Rob S: Thanks, yes we crossed wires. It's hard to write as clearly as one needs to I'm finding.
-
My three year old knows not to run in front of cars or not put his hand into a fire, that is, most of the time - but I can't take it for granted. He could have an illogical moment and do the wrong thing - that's why it is my job to hold his hand if we're near a road, or have a fireguard over the fireplace - I have no right to smack him for not retaining some information his brain is just learning to be equipped for.
-
Kyle: It's pointless playng the "it's only a defence" game. If you crimialize possession of a drug but throw in a clause later about "reasonable amounts for personal use" not resulting in anyone going to prison, rather than sticking it in the original clause, then you've decriminalized possession of reasonable amounts etc.. It's just a different way of getting the same thing. The left would see this on any other issue (and does in fact do so), I swear....
The comparison is invalid - what you've put forward isn't a defence to get you out of a prosecution, this is a (hypothetical) positive piece of legislation saying "You are allowed X amounts of drugs." There's no law on our books saying "you are allowed Y amount of smacking".
The law says assault is against the law, and people are "justified in using force by way of correction towards the child". It doesn't say that "parents using reasonable force are not committing assault", it says they are committing assault and that assault is justified by way of correction towards the child.
In much the same way that the ship/plane's captain might assault a passenger who is out of control and posing a danger to his vessel and its passengers. It might be justified assault, but it's still assault.
So yes, smacking is illegal at present. I'll restate, if it wasn't illegal, you couldn't be convicted of it in a court of law, because you shouldn't get convicted of things that aren't illegal.
And good to see you speaking out for 'the left'. They have so much trouble doing it themselves, nice of them to appoint you as their spokesperson to represent them. My ballot paper must have gone missing in the post.
Your speeding case has too many variants to consider. Sorry.
Ah my bad. Nice to know my argument is invalid through... being too complex?
-
Kyle: The law can just be written in different ways. And the important thing, in my view, is just not to deceive to yourself about what it all adds up to.
What's merely a defence and what's positively coded up as a permission in law is not that important (controlling for enforcement etc). If you are a country (e.g. Brazil now, TX up to about 1970 I seem to remember!) that has on its books that "legitimate defense of honor" is a justification for a guy to kill his wife (i.e., as a defence against homicide charges), then it's pointless to try to maintain that you don't allow guys to kill their cheating wives (or whatever it is). You do. And if that blot gets wiped off the books then it's right to say that you've finally criminalized it.
Simialrly if you repeal our self-defence justification (s 48) then what have you done? I think it's fair to say that you've criminalized defending yourself. It's pointless to say that, no, (i) self-defending always strictly involved committing a crime, and that (ii) only a possible defence has been removed. (All of that is best understood as a description of how you've criminalized something.)
Suppose you want to argue against people being able to defend themselves because you think too many people are getting off assault charges on such grounds or that vigilantism is breaking out or.... That's fine... just don't kid youself that you're doing anything less than criminalize self-defence.
In either case - crazy defensive law being removed, or very good defensive law being removed - it's very important to be able to see the criminalization forest rather than all the procedural trees. No one needs to wait around for the positive law never-never-land which includes "You may not kill your cheating wife" or "You may not use reasonable force to defend youself" to have grasped the true meaning of what's just happened.
You didn't like my drug law case but doing a "reasonable amounts for personal use" defence clause would be a perfectly acceptable way of writing a decrim. law, and if our own traditions had evolved ever so slightly differently (i.e., to value personal substance expression a little more) we would write it that way.
Your accounts of smacking and Captaincy are too narrowly procedural and legal-formulation-dependent in my view. See earlier remarks about forests and trees.
Your speeding case:
It's illegal to speed in New Zealand. If I speed, and either 1. don't get caught, or 2. don't get a ticket/conviction because I have a good excuse (ie, hospital emergency! pregnant woman! chased by homicidal axe murderer! I'm actually a police officer doing my duty!), then speeding is still illegal. I still broke the law, I just got away with it or had good reason for doing so.
I think there are a bunch of cases to consider here and this note's too long already.... But, look, if there was an explicit defence against traffic violations clauses somewhere in the traffic regulations:
e.g., "Police, fire personnel, etc. are justifed in ignoing trafic regulation so long as they pay reasonnable attention to public safety" without regard for the speed limit"
then I'd say that their speeding etc. is effectively legalized (and even that there's a sense in which their actions stop being speeding in that case)
It might be nicer in some respects to have things formulated non-defensively, e.g.,
"Police etc. may ignore trafic regulation so long as they pay reasonable attention to public safety"
But, seriously, there's very little difference between these two options. Deleting either one would amount to binding the police, etc. in traffic-misdemeanor land with the rest of us, and with either one the poliec etc. are free.
I do not claim to speak for the Left any more than I claim to speak for the mafia. I speak of them both occasionally.
-
So I was listening to the Panal yesterday afternoon and the principal of Shirly Boys High School was on, and after he said his piece on the topic of the moment he then launched into an impassioned plea for solid government family friendly policies. He went on to explain that many of the discipline problems of today were a result of not having family friendly policiys (ones that supported a mum, dad and kids). So this begs the question - exactly what are 'family friendly government policies' that these people keep asking for, and did we ever have them (given the assumption that a point in the past the family unit was strong and everyone was happy and more moral? Or are they wanting something else entirely new? (like a paterfamilias?)
This sort of ties into the debate in this thread, given the strong 'family is the fundamental building block of society' positions of many of the anti amendment organisations.
-
ugh, wish I'd previewed that before posting...oh well
-
Yes---and further perhaps we might get a list of current policies which are not FFPs, though from Ben's account it sounds as though this is not a problem, i.e. that there aren't, in this Principal's view, any non-FFPs, which is nice.
-
So this begs the question - exactly what are 'family friendly government policies'
I'm under the impression that it's code, like 'Family Valves'.
Basically the right wing Christian crap about being a married straight couple with children, that believes exactly the same as they do, get there moral guidiance and science education from the bible. The old testiment part to. None of this new testiment hippie tolerance and turn the other check stuff either.
They use those phrases, since they sound more positive then banning gay rights, womens rights, independant thought etc. -
I'd like such a list with reasons attached ideally.
-
I spend a while yesterday on the Family Ingeraty web site.
Was a slow day at work.
Even read their phamlet about the dangers of the amendment. Oddly enough the more I read, the more I thought the amendment was a good idea.
They do a reasonable good job of toning down the religious nonsense. But then I looked at the feedback page where they answered questions defending their position. Then it comes out.
Their only argument is, the bible says so. (I get turned off pretty quickly with thought sort of stuff, so I only read so far).Nothing says you have no argument like quoting scripture.
-
I'd like such a list with reasons attached ideally.
How about:
- making homosexuality illegal
- banning controception and abortions
- teaching creation and bible studies in school
- no social welfareJust to start with.
-
IIRC the latter two are interesting, especially if one reads about the Education Act debates of the 19th century - spefically the place of religious instruction in state schools. Based on that I'd should be safe in making the statement that at no point has bible studies in schools been a government policy in NZ.
-
Ben, I'm bored and being facetious.
Besides these types never let reality get in the way.After re-reading my posts, I think should take more time and proof read. Or just wait until I've had my morning coffee.
I also misread your post and just listed some FFPs that they will like to have.
The no social welfare one was a nod to the fact that there is a lot of American influence on this type of religion.
So we should add 'no personal income tax' as well -
Well beats being bored and thinking of pirate gold.
-
Well beats being bored and thinking of pirate gold
I don't know, does it include Keria Knightley in a corset?
-
Kyle: The law can just be written in different ways. And the important thing, in my view, is just not to deceive to yourself about what it all adds up to.
Clearly this isn't going anywhere but restating points, so I'll wave it off and enjoy my Easter.
-
what are 'family friendly government policies' that these people keep asking for
This from Family Fist spells out pretty clearly what they mean by FFP, anything that promotes their conception of a family. Anything elsewise is of course satanic lesbianism and communist witchcraft.
I'd like such a list with reasons attached ideally
reasons? oh i think you've missed their point entirely my friend.
-
I like number 9
We affirm that the world is abundant in resources. The breakdown of the natural family and
the consequential moral and political failure, not human “overpopulation,” account for
poverty, starvation, and environmental decay.lol
-
Hm!!! So I wonder what the word affirm means then? The Collins ED says:
(1) declare to be true; (2) to uphold, confirm or ratify
If they meant to say "We think this is true" why not say so?---it's much clearer. Sounds a bit equivocating, like they didn't want to say "true" in case people found they could disagree.
-
Number 9 definately is special. Kind of weirds me out to think that all of life's problems bar none can be solved by making the family follow a fundamentalist framework. Who would have thought that the search for cold fusion was so pointless?
-
merc,
Charlie Manson liked Number 9...
-
merc,
...and he had a Family.
-
he he... The Family. flirty fishing
Post your response…
This topic is closed.