Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I beg your pardon?
I said, "Bingo!"
Angus, I'm thinking about a range of behaviour, much of which goes beyond mere expression.
However - Even if it doesn't: if the situation sucks, then by the same token people have the right to complain about it, tell people off if they're being dicks, to try to stop it, and to complain when people treat it as a fact of life.
-
Though it was already an "anti-smacking debate".
-
Who first coined the name "Anti-smacking Bill" anyway? They should be held to account!
Earlier in the debate someone looked that one up...
Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill
Monday, 6 October 2003, 12:22 pm
Press Release: Green Party -
How do you "criminalise" someone?
It is the case that if you commit a crime, you're a criminal; but an awareness of the full extent of things that are crimes suggests that few are immune and it's not necessarily as bad as it sounds.
I've had the impression there's a similar issue with people where they can't see smacking as a bad thing because they've done it and they're not a bad person.
It's probably not coincidence that the same logic that same logic means criminals are condemned as evil people (and they condemn themselves), which relates to a whole nother debate.
I'm also reminded of complaints of "law-abiding" drivers being fined for speeding.
He has gone up several points in my estimation since that announcement.
I can say I felt like seeking him out and shaking his hand. "Well played, Sir!"
It probably helped that he'd want to stop people speculating what the Nats would do by the evening news.
-
For those who get their news via PA system, John Boscawen's insconsequential smacking bill was been drawn from the ballot today.
Wheee.
-
I imagine the defence might mention the powers granted to legal guardians under the Care of Children Act 2004.
I won't share my ignorance re: whether that would apply to assault too. I just thought I'd share what I found in my random glances:
Principles relevant to child’s welfare and best interests
...
(e) the child’s safety must be protected and, in particular, he or she must be protected from all forms of violence (whether by members of his or her family, family group, whānau, hapu, or iwi, or by other persons): -
Around this point I like to ask whether a legal guardian has ever been charged with kidnapping for making a child go to their room.
-
For example, the wording of s59 may also support an argument that inflicting harm after the event may be preventative.
Surely the bit where its say "whatever I said before, no force for correction" and then says, "did you see back there where I said that about no force for correction" overrides that question.
-
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but *can* we settle this by doing what Larry Baldock wants us to?
Given he thinks he can add the defence he wants by by __deleting__ clauses from the law, I'm not sure he's been following as closely as one might wish.
/hi david
-
[without actually watching those ads yet]
I get the idea people just assume nasty traffic ads will actually change behaviour. But, psychologically, punishment (and that is vicarious punishment) doesn't work very well. You need show what people need to do instead and reward that (like certain drinking-driving ads at the moment).
I'm aware that might be harder to do with drugs - not least without seeming to condone non-driving drugs use.
I suppose the graphic thing serves as a background but it shouldn't be your focus; you do need to run a positive message. Often this doesn't even occur to anyone. Plus, people might actually want to watch nice ones.