Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Off this thread but just a warning to all those adjacent countries like Mexico and Canada who think that George made a mistake by sending the bulk of his army and reserves overseas and that the US is ripe for the plucking........see http://www.armedamerica.org/index.html and beware!
Love the guy who says "Owning a firearm brings me some sort of balance. When I am angry at the world I find relief in dropping a clip into the air. And, at the same time, if the world threatens me or those I love, I find relief in the protection it gives me."
Because unbalanced people who get angry and 'drop a clip into the air'. That's exactly who we want owning _four_ firearms. Yup.
-
Rights, such as freedom religion - which at international law acceded to by New Zealand includes the freedom to raise your children according to your religion - can be subject to limits, but those limits must be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
So, as a matter of law, if it could be established that removing a legal right of parents to lightly smack their children would save lives and/or reduce actual child abuse, then yes, it might well be permissible.
I would think that international law, and IMHO, common sense, would say that children's rights overrule parental rights, particularly if they're just parental rights based on religion. Religious belief can't be used to take away other people's rights, once society has ruled people have those rights.
For me, the heart of the debate is, should children have the same rights as adults. The 'rights of parents to smack kids' is not a basic human right. It's just something that's been allowed in society. The right not to be assaulted is, most people would agree, fairly fundamental. I think children should be extended that protection.
The debate about 'light smacking not being harmful' and the role of police and the courts are all side issues.
We wouldn't have a debate about 'lightly smacking your wife' being allowable under law in NZ. Previously in history that was considered acceptable, but society has moved on and recognised your can't do that to another adult. It's time for society to recognise the same thing for children.
-
The fourth point is, as those who disagree with the Bill correctly state--the Bill doesn't actually do anything to protect children who are currently being seriously assaulted, and who presently fall outside Section 59 anyway. Children will continue to be seriously assaulted irrespective of what the law says.
I'm not sure what your/their point is. The bill seeks to address problem X. How is pointing out that it doesn't address problem Y addressing the bill at all?
If it can help deal with the fact that police have been having trouble getting convictions of some clearly inappropriate treatment of children, then it's a good thing, yes?
-
Passing laws you don't want enforced is antithetical to so much of the Greens' views on other justice issues. The Green Party would have been justifiably outraged if the Homosexual Law Reform Bill had failed on the basis that the offences it removed just wouldn't be actively enforced by the police.
The charge in question is already actively not enforced in a number of areas. Assaults that take place on rugby fields every weekend are almost never even looked at by the police - there would have to be serious permanent injury for someone to be charged. Lots of drunken push and shoves and a couple of punches on Saturday night never see more than a 'sober up and stop being dickheads' from the police.
That might sound very ad-hoc, but the law empowers the police to only pursue arrest and conviction when it's in the public interest. It's something that's reasonably well understood in the police prosecutions sections, and in most areas works out reasonably well. In the past twenty years they've put a lot more heat on domestic assault incidents, recognising that victims often don't complain about their partners, more recently I suspect the heat has gone off ritual child sex abuse cases, as the public 'hysteria' about those has died down and they've had a bit of a reality check about some of the cases they were pursuing.
So this law change is actually increasing consistency, because it gives children the same protection that any rugby player has. That is, that there is a law which protects them from being assaulted, and the police will look at each situation that they're called to and decide whether or not to press charges.
If we were to say that laws always need to be enforced, then every drunken assault, rugby field punch up, high school scrap would end up in court. Clearly that doesn't happen now, the same thing would apply with every smack on the hand that a kid gets.
Personally I'm of the opinion that children should have higher levels of protection than adults, because children aren't necessarily able to protect themselves, or seek police or other support independently of their parents. But giving them the same levels of protection seems legally fair.
We're going to be left with a situation where, if in the view of police, a parent has 'taken things too far' and brought out a block of wood or a riding crop and beaten their child, then police are not going to have to worry about whether the law backs them up. Their consideration is going to be 'is it in the public interest to prosecute this parent'. If the kid has been seriously hurt, or there seems to be a likelihood that the force is increasing as time goes on, then clearly there will be a public interest and prosecution will proceed.
Previously some parents have gotten away with what's essentially out of control beatings of their children. The law needs to adjust and we trust the police, as we do in umpteen other areas, to have brains when it comes to knowing when to enforce it.
-
Stephen, I presume that all could happen. But no national sporting body owns any infrastructure assets like this - stadia etc. If the NZRFU was to put 50 million into a stadium in Auckland, which is essentially a regional stadium, then why shouldn't they put 50 million into Carisbrook, which is also a regional stadium. And the cake tin etc etc etc.
The NZRFU doesn't own stadia. They really should be owed and operated at a local level, even if national funding goes into them.
-
Um, no. if you go to the effort of checking the latest inventory report, you'll see that the vast majority of man-made atmospheric carbon emissions are due to farmers.
I'm no expert, but I suspect, unless the farmers have really bad personal habits, that when you say 'farmers' you mean 'cows and sheep'. Obviously they have some responsibility for it, but as someone who drinks milk and likes a good chop, it'd be fairer to attribute it to the whole industry rather than those 'naughty farmers'.
There's another debate there about whether or not 'cows and sheep' are man-made, but I guess you could say the same thing about coal, and it doesn't advance the discussion.
-
I've been walking around with a feeling (particularly the past couple of days, but also during the CB series) of just how good one-day cricket is these days. I don't know if it's the influence of 20-20, a new generation of players, or just the game taking another step.
But we're consistently seeing big scores - how many times have Australia scored 330-something in the past couple of years playing NZ, only have to it either chased down, or almost chased down - the ball is heading into the stands a hell of a lot, the bowlers are having to evolve, and there's a feeling that Australia aren't always head and shoulders above the rest of us.
Even lower scoring affairs, of which there were a few in the CB series, were pretty good games. Almost makes me wish I could afford Sky.
And don't start me on how good NZ is suddenly looking for the World Cup. I know that's overconfidence based on just a couple of games, but if we can tape Oram up, I see a semis spot on the horizon. And young Taylor. We like him.
-
Sorry Marcus, I actually agree that declining apprenticeship rates are a problem - however other forms of vocational training have gone through the roof. Fixing apprenticeships relies on their being jobs and industries where employers can and will hire and train young people for four years... and that ain't Glassons(incidentally McDonalds have a good training record/program).
There's a vast gaping hole in New Zealand labour after previous governments ripped the guts out of the apprenticeship system. The current government has fixed it reasonably well about 6 or so years ago, but it's taken years for numbers to get back up to the levels that the country needs, and another decade or so until the 'new kids' have progressed far enough into the system (owning their own business and assets instead of working for someone else, moving around the country to spread themselves where the work is etc) until it's back to 'normal'.
There's still big shortages in various areas around the country, particularly the building trade, as a result of the national government doing away with apprenticeships.
-
Macs (since 10.4 I think) have had a similar thing. Whenever you run a piece of software for the first time it asks whether you really want to run it. It also does this anytime you update it (so it asks again when you go from Itunes 7.02 to Itunes 7.03.
It's supposed to protect from your computer being hacked by a trojan or whatever. Which is a good thing.
Except, I always open the application with a mouse, and presumably my computer knows that, so it annoys me that it still pops up the window and asks me if I really want to open it. Yes dammit, open already.
-
I grew up in Auckland, but thankfully got out in 1993. It astounds me that Queen Street still allows anyone with a car to drive it's length. Personally I think Dunedin should shut down George Street to a series of malls, allowing on traffic to cross it. The argument seems to be twice as strong in Auckland.