Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well, that would be article 5:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
and article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
-
Tapu Misa has a column about this issue in today's NZ Herald.
-
So why dont the rights to freedom from abduction and detention without trial (by thier own custodial parents), equally apply to children too?
Interesting point, FletcherB, and it makes it clear to me that what we are involved in here is a line drawing exercise. And like many line drawing exercise, it's very easy to make judgements at either end of the scale, but bloody difficult to acutually draw the line, between what is permissable and what is impermissable.
I am tempted to argue next that given that it's very difficult indeed to draw the line, I'm inclined to err on the side of caution, and that means protecting the vulnerable, and supporting the repeal of section 59. However, that would be disingenuous of me - I am flatly opposed to section 59, and I support Bradford's bill, without the Burrows amendment.
Even so, I think that a principle of caution, and a principle of protecting the vulnerable, should lead us to supporting the bill.
(I should add here that I am no moral saint, I have smacked two of my children, once each, and I regard those acts as among the most morally shameful things I have ever done.)
-
But why ARE we only discussing one aspect of childrens rights.... and then using the if its good enough for adults, then its good enough for kids too argument?
If its a good or logical argument, surely it applies to the all types of rights?
The fact that it clearly doesnt apply to all types of rights suggests maybe it doesnt apply to this one, or even any?I would have thought the presumption runs exactly the other way, FletcherB. Human rights are supposed to be universal, so oughtn't we assume that all human rights apply to children (they are human, after all.... 'though mine do have a good go at proving they are not, from time to time) and then make case by case arguments for exceptions. So we need to hear the case for allowing physical violence to be applied to children as a special exception from universal human rights, rather than having to make a case in favour of extending human rights to children.
-
The thing that *really* gets me is that in 1986 (or thereabouts) the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed on the premise that the State had no business in your bedroom, which I concur with.
That's right. The State has no business whatsoever interfering with activity between two (or more!) consenting adults.
But children are not consenting adults.
This is not about getting involved in people's households. It's about protecting our most vulnerable citizens.
-
Great post, Andy C.
May I offer an alternative to David Haywood's stunning suggestion for disciplining children.
It's the Chocolate Frog technique, specially designed for long car journeys, with squabbling children in the back seat.
At the start of the trip, buy a packet of chocolate frogs. Open them, and leave them in view, in the front seat somewhere.
When the behaviour in the backseat gets just too much to cope with anymore, wind down a window, and throw a chocolate frog out.
If there are any left at the end of the journey, the children may have them.
Or the variant technique - eat the chocolate frogs yourself.
-
And for the benefit of anjum and deborah, could anyone explain what legitimate interest the New Zealand Government has in collecting census data on people's religious affiliations, full stop?
I don't know, but if they are going to collect the data, then they could at least report it accurately. I would guess that there were other people who declared themselves to be atheisits - surely I'm not the only one in the country. So if they are going to report the 12 people who declared their religion to be 'Tenriko'. they should be willing to report the number of people who declare themselves to be atheists, instead of casually lumping us into 'no religion'.
well, i guess us religionists would say that you do have a belief. your belief is that there is no God, no valid religion etc. you may say that it's not belief, it's fact.
... but as we saw with the "pakeha/european new zealander" debate, and as proved on this thread, it doesn't matter what you call a group of people, someone in the group is not going to like it.Indeed. I very explictly said that I do not have a belief, and you immediately, and rather patronisingly, turn that into a belief. Let me be very clear. I do not believe in any gods because there is no credible evidence that any god(s) exists. That is not a belief - it is no belief.
I'm simply not interested in being treated as one faith among many, because I have no faith. Your statement on diversity is an intellectual fraud when you try to treat me as having a belief, and refuse to listen to my account of myself.
-
New Zealand upholds the right to freedom of religion and belief and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religious or other belief.
paul morris clarified that "other belief" included those who have no religion.That's not an 'other belief'. It's 'no belief'.
I'm already cross that the census data ignored my atheism, and classed me as having 'no religion'. I don't want this statement on diversity to classify atheism as 'other belief'. Atheism is not a belief. It's 'no belief'.
-
On the ABC website tonight:
Set 347 to win, the home side was struggling at 5 for 116 in the 17th over
Do you think the Aussies would have been feeling cautiously optimistic at this point?
-
About a month ago I posted this:
So looking at our last three performances, and the current one, there's only one thing to say:
Bracewell must go!
It's a case study in how to take a group of talented players, working together as a reasonably cohesive unit, and turn them into a rabble.I resile from this statement.