Posts by Brickley Paiste
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sorry, me again. I intend the following in good non-troll-like faith.
I took the liberty of emailing the New York Times editor regarding their style guide and our little debate of killing versus murder.
Here is what he said:
Hello Mr. Paiste*,
The Times stylebook has this to say:
murder, homicide, killing. Reserve murder for a crime that has been so labeled by the authorities in a warrant, a charge or a conviction. A murder is the killing of one person by one or more others under conditions specified by law — in a vicious manner, for example, or during another crime. A homicide is any killing of one person by another, but killing is the simpler word: preferably use it until a legal finding has been made. Someone arrested in a death is not a murder suspect unless murder charges have been filed.
In articles about crime statistics, murder rate is an acceptable informal reference. But when counting actual deaths, use homicides. The homicide rate is a ratio of killings to population: The national homicide rate rose to 55 per 100,000 population, from 52; The city had a homicide rate of 1 per 1,350 residents.
Hope that helps.
Best,
Daniel
nytimes.com
So, somewhat helpful.
Reserve murder for a crime that has been so labeled by the authorities in a warrant, a charge or a conviction.
A warrant, charge or conviction are quite different beasts. An inauspicious start...
A murder is the killing of one person by one or more others under conditions specified by law — in a vicious manner, for example, or during another crime.
No we're getting warm.
A homicide is any killing of one person by another, but killing is the simpler word: preferably use it until a legal finding has been made.
Boom-sha-ka-la-ka-la-ka. Blop, blop! Brrrrr-ba-da-boosh.
Someone arrested in a death is not a murder suspect unless murder charges have been filed.
There is I/S's point connected, as I argued earlier, logically to the preceding point.
So, there you have it from the best newspaper on earth, while it still exists.
Oh yeah: did I mention kiss my ass?
*Ok, it said my actual name.
-
We shall also have to rewrite all of the Classics.
No, we won't. Polonius said "My God, I'm slain". Not murdered. Even a bumbling idiot like Polonius understood the difference. Neither a killer nor a slayer be.
Wait, does that mean I'm the idiot because Polonoius said it? Were his words sagacious or idiotic? Curse the Bard of Avon and his trickery!
That was quite funny, Paul, but you now have to change the Ice-T classic to "Cop Murderer" from "Cop Killer" as well.
-
Perhaps we could let this go now, because it really is pointless.
Ok.
-
Oh come on. Actual working lawyers have responded to your point in this thread. You've simply ignored them.
I don't expect you to change your view on it, but I'd also be grateful if you weren't to sulk because other people disagree with you.
Did I ignore them? I thought I kept refining my point and answering their arguments. If it seems as if I'm ignoring them then that probably means the point truly, as said quite a while ago, can't be taken any further.
Your argument, Russell, seems to be "Yeah sure, but the colloquial usage is just fine". My point is that it isn't. It's lazy, inaccurate and incendiary. So there isn't much further to take it.
But you don't seem to be discussing the issues. You seem more determined to have a debate about the meaning of "is".
Have you ever watched Clinton's testimony? It's incredible. He forced them to define sexual relations and then argued that it never happened. They had a list of 12 things. And the definition of "is" mattered. It's awesome. He's a ninja.
Anyway, I really boiled my points down in the last point. I think there is a difference between "terrorism" as previously defined and "terrorist act" as now defined. I think it is siginficant that Parliament repealed the earlier defintion. That was really all I was saying.
-
Man, when the going gets weird...
My point wasn't in the least bit tenuous, Russell. It was really simple and I find it unfortunate that an accomplished journalist such as yourself fails to see the ethical issue staring you in the face.
Point the first:
It all depends on whether we are using murder in the colloquial or legal sense. However, since murder is defined as the intentional and unlawful killing of one person by another - and since nothing is considered unlawful until a jury says so or someone pleads guilty - I am more correct. Best way to talk about it would be to call it a "killing" or say that the accused has been "charged with murder".
However, I realise that journos are not lawyers, and the use of the term murder would be colloquially acceptable but I would have thought journalists, being wordsmiths, would avoid loose language, especially when discussing things legal.
I guess I'm wrong. Chalk one up for the Talkbackification of all things journalistic.
Point the second:
Terrorism has no positive definition in NZ. It used to. Now we have a definition of "terrorist act" that is insanely complicated. Terrorism is a term popularised by American fascists. Therefore, I don't use it. End of point.
That's all I've been saying.
Point the third (new!):
I do find it fascinating on how hard the other bloggers -- Paul, I/S -- have circled the wagons when I made a critical evaluation of Russell's post.
I read every post at Hard News and would be seriously less informed if I didn't. But it does seem that the chat rooms, or at the very least this thread, are more of a Gen X love-in than a forum for honest debate. That's too bad. I would have thought we could avoid the maudlin and really focus on nutting out issues, especially those that have arisen out of a post.
-
I get the impression that Mr Paiste is arguing in good faith.
Thanks. Indeed, I was.
It's just that no-one gives a stuff about the semantics he wants to resolve.
Yes, it would seem you are correct.
Russell's analogy of angels on the head of a pin was pretty spot-on - regardless of the answer, no-one cares and it isn't important.
Why, that makes it sound as if you care! Shall I re-hash my arguments for you? Well, let's see. First...
So can we all agree that a finalised, fully accurate textbook definition of 'murder' and 'terrorism' is not what we want to talk about, and move on to something else?
I suppose. I'll take the matter up again with that rather stony faced chap who dresses up as a pilot and stands in front of the Flight Centre. He's always willing to listen.
-
I'm sure this fool will still be at it when I return.
Oh dear. Play nice. No ad hominem arguments. Unless of course you were talking in a Mr T voice. He called lots of people fools and often extended them his pity. Were you doing that?
Ditto. OTOH, calling the alleged shooter a murderer(as opposed to an alleged murderer) would be prejudging the outcome of the trial.
So why would the same thing not apply to calling the act a murder before that has been decided? You're half right. Go the extra mile. It works both ways.
I/S set-out in full the current definition of "terrorist act" which I won't repeat but will break down below.
Under the previous definition, inserted by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Act 1977, and was in force force until 2002, it was defined thus:
'Terrorism' means planning, threatening, using, or attempting to use violence to coerce, deter, or intimidate--
(a) The lawful authority of the State in New Zealand; or
(b) The community throughout New Zealand or in any area in New Zealand for the purpose of furthering any political aim.
So, let us compare statutory provisions, as Leonard Cohen once wrote.
The current provision defines a "terrorist act" (TA). An act is such an act if it falls into the subsection two buckets or breaks an international convention or falls within s4(1).
Subsection 2 is a mouthful.
An act is a TA if it is intended to cause in any country one of the things in subs 3 and is carried out to advance an ideological, political, or religious cause with the intention (a double intention now) to induce terror (terror isn't defined in the Act) or to to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.
What of subs 3? Killing one person or more; serious risk to health and safety; messing up finances or environment if it will lead to death or serious risk to health and safety; messing with infrastructure if likely to endanger human life; releasing diseases if likely to devastate the national economy of the country.
The best part is subs 5 which says that strikes and protests are not "by themselves" sufficient for falling under the definition unless it satisfies subs 2 and 3. (This really does allow an argument that a general strike would be a terrorist act since it would be an action to force a government to do something and it could threaten the safety of the population if it included essential services).
And what of the old definition of terrorism?
It was really simple -- it focused on using violence to coerce, deter or intimdate the lawful authority of the State or the community throughout New Zealand to further political aims.
That is what terorrorism was until 7 years ago. Now it has no legal meaning. Instead, we have a rather baroque provision that includes a trojan horse against the trade unions.
I/S, go look up the select committee minutes on why this was repealed. I reckon it would probably be pretty vague.
-
Was Julius Caesar not murdered then? OJ Simpson's wife? JFK?
Nicole Brown Simpson's life was ended in an action of wrongful death. She wasn't murdered, because the glove didn't fit. They had to acquit. No murder. Not guilty. I remember watching the verdict come through quite clearly.
Caesar? I can't remember off the top of my head. Was anyone ever tried? Didn't Augustus just restore the Empire and get on with it? Was there a trial? I don't know.
JFK? Clay Shaw aka Clay Bertrand, I think, was tried for his murder or maybe a coup d'etat. That's if he is actually dead. You'd have to ask Tommy Lee Jones. He'd know that type of thing.
-
Sort of like being guilty of racketeering, if you get sprung running rackets.
Yes, if racketeering had once been defined in law and then repealed, I totally agree with you.
-
But what is terrorism if not carrying out terrorist acts?
1. I'll look up the old definition tomorrow and get back to you. I seem to recall there was an important difference. If there isn't, I'll fall on my sword, face-first.
2. Do you recognise my rejoinder to Stephen though? I am forced to accept that if one were guilty of committing "acts of terrorism" one would be, in a loose non-legally defined sense, be guilty of terrorism. But it is no accident that a definition of a slippery umbrella concept got replaced with definitions of specific actions. Therein lies the difference and my entire point.
3. I'm also surprised that I/S would be so quick to call the killing of the doctor who performs abortions (I'm now an unwilling slave to my own labels) since s2(b) and s3(c) clearly would include mass civil unrest against government policy. Be careful of what you wish for.
4. Don't forget that among the first to be charged in the US with terrorism were two dudes with a rifle hanging out in boots of cars in Washington. Doesn't really "fit" what we think of when we think of terrorism.
5. What about my point about murder, Russell?