Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Shucks, all this lovely stuff and I did so little. Much appreciated. Big ups have to go to my wife, Kim, who's achieved/endured much. Pregnancy, birth, feeding; who'd take all that on voluntarily? Foot massages are the least she deserves (but how's this, I found Feijoas for her in Sydney... c'mon!)
I reckon an announcement thread would be a good thing. I'd talked to my family and friends, wet the baby's head and wanted to extend the moment by sharing it here. I've said before, this is a remarkable community, one that I value and respect greatly and the aroha is felt and shared. </indulgent-sentimentaliy>
-
I don't know about "easy" Tim; perhaps a little less cluttered with anxiety... but that's just my personal experience, not a commentary on what ordinarily happens. I hope you and your's are doing great.
I do love the camaraderie that develops between new dads... we wander about the maternity ward, a little gormless and blissed out, stumbling about looking for bunny-rugs and hoping the midwives will be nice (they are). I've spent a couple of nights in the ward, tonight at home with my older girl. I've smoked the cigar, had a whiskey and now need to plan for the arrival home... coaxing a mid-wife to leave with us seems fruitless...
Kids are miraculous but. I know that's a risky phrase to be using in this mainly secular space, but they just are.
-
Nothing radical, 'less you think a Maori middle name for distinctly Pakeha parents is radical... but it's not really, even for Sydney-resident kiwis...
-
I did so little so long ago ~ gwad women are marvellous! I'm now surrounded by them, this is number two for us; Evie Marama. Thank you all for your best wishes.
-
I haz new baby!
I feel the need to tell the PA community since most of the stuff for which I'm not remunerated and genuinely care about is documented here. I'd tell you all about my wife's heroics... but it's her story (it's impressive but, 'cor, what a woman).
Sleeplessness, I fear thee not for I have Foxtel and the Ashes starts soon!
-
Graeme pointing out that not being convicted isn't the same as saying the act isn't a criminal act.
Agreed. It's not what I meant to argue however. My point is that amendment does not make smacking your child a strict liability offence, so to say all parents who smack their kids are criminal is to ignore the defences that remain available.
The amendment does not criminalise ordinary every day parents,
Yes it does, in the sense Graeme has been talking about pretty consistently. It might be worth you taking the time to read the exchange between Graeme and Brickley Paiste (or something like that - typing the name from memory) that starts page two and takes a 2 or 3 pages. Its pretty clear to me that Graeme established that, prior to the law change, the act of hitting your child lightly for the purpose of correction was not illegal, but now it is: it is an illegal act. An act "ordinary everyday parents" are committing, presumably.I'll re-read it but I didn't think it was on the same issue. I accept that the removal of the special defence exposes smacking parents to criminal charges (for which discretion around charges and other defences are available as per above).
I'd re-word that to say something like: I suspect that parliament doesn't want minor incidents of pushing or hitting on the rugby field to be a criminal level of assault. (I mean ones outside the rules of the game.)
It doesn't matter a whole lot what Parliament wants, the acts may well be prima facie assaults, what keeps them out of the courts is likely practical constraints relating to evidence, various defences and the lack of public interest.
-
Thanks 3410, that is what I meant. The presumption of innocence is a legal presumption, not absolute.
-
Not guilty, in that you haven't been convicted; but convicted or not, charged or not, parents who lightly smack have broken the law.
That's a different point to the one you made earlier. You said:
Bradford may have wanted to make parents who lightly smack their children criminals (although I believe she's denied that), but I am quite confident the Parliament did not believe parents who lightly smack their children are or should be considered criminals.
It was the use of the word criminal that I disagreed with. The amendment does not criminalise ordinary every day parents, it's not strict liability, various other defences may apply and unless there's a public interest in a charge being laid, parents may not ever be charged. Chuck and dave, I can understand, being confused about the difference.
Whether parents are "guilty" or have broken the law in a legal rather than philosophical sense is also debatable. You're innocent of a crime until proven guilty, surely you're also innocent if you've not even been charged?
If I were to rob a bank, and never get caught, my actions would be criminal, not potentially criminal.
I think that's absurd and hardly a reasonable comparison. Moreover, I can't imagine the Police not investigating and attempting to lay charges in the case of a bank robbery. The two situations just aren't alike.
How about two people involved in a minor fracas at a bar; I've seen plenty of these where the Police have simply moved people along and not, though they could have, detained or charged either party.
The amendment merely removes a defence, not all defences, from parents/care-givers etc and in so doing, simply gives children the same rights their parents enjoy.
-
Graeme, I fear we're talking past each other.
I don't accept that my interpretation of the amendment automatically makes parents who "lightly smack" criminals. It removes a defence, yes. It exposes parents to the risk of a charge, yes. But you're not guilty of a crime simply because you "lightly smack"; it's not a strict liability offence and the Police have discretion over laying charges.
Despite a majority in Parliament believing rightly or wrongly that light smacking should not be criminal, Parliament passed a law which made it criminal.
Only potentially criminal.
Parliament amended the law to expose the physical discipline of a child to the possibility of criminal charges by removing a special defence - one that applied only to care-givers/parents/guardians.
Incidentally, they removed one defence, not all defences. Parents presumably have other defences such e.g. self defence.
-
I don't see how scenario 1 applies at all: Bradford et al removed the defence because they wanted criminal chargest/convictions to not be avoided simply cause the assailant was the parent of the victim.