"The total passion for the total height"
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 4 users and 25 guests online.
Online usersPollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 84% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 3% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 1% Something else (specify) 9% Total votes: 76
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
When a Criminal Offence Has Happened, When is it Considered Inconsequential? Submitted by Sandi on Sun, 2007-05-06 00:59.
Our American friends may have noticed the intense debate of New Zealanders regarding the "Anti-Smacking" Bill currently before parliament. In simple terms, an intended amendment to the bill would have made it illegal for any parent to smack their child/children. A huge majority of New Zealander's, were outraged by this bill; ( see Lindsay step up to the plate.) Such was the outrage, our lying/cheating government tried to fast track this bill through parliament, only to be cut off at the knee’s by one of their member’s who they had sacked a few weeks prior (I digress). To cut to the chase, the amendment was eventually passed, aided and abetted by the leader of the opposition John Key. This was through an absolutely gutless capitulation of principles. He, who was more concerned with political polish, than upholding democratic principle. The proposed bill removes a defence of reasonable force and thus effectively making criminals out of parents who smacked their children. The amendment gives police the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent, where the offence was considered "so inconsequential" there was no public interest in it going ahead. One does not need to be in the legal profession to see that the amendment is a “bad law” I mean to say, why bother electing a government if it can not define its own laws and leaves it up to the police to decide. I thought that making decisions is one of the key tasks that we pay them to do (apart from taking hugely expensive taxi rides whilst mere mortals wait in cold airport gyms). Besides, where on the ballot paper does it say which cop you are voting for? The politicians realise that the police are better at making decisions than they are and both the Labour Party and National Party have acknowledged this by ceding the right of judgement to the police in this amendment. As for the opposition leader John Key (Another Neville)... His words were that the amendment was “to give comfort to parents, that they would not be prosecuted for lightly smacking their kids and to give police clear guidance they should not pursue "inconsequential" matters Now if this hasn’t been enough to make you vomit as yet, better go fetch a bucket before reading any further. A worker for Subway was sacked for sharing her cup of coke with a friend. Not only was she fired, the police have charged her for stealing a cup of coke to the value of $4.00. Furthermore, according to this news report, she spent 2 hours in a police cell! How can this prosecution possibly be in the public interest? I would hate to hazard a guess of the cost involved in this prosecution. Furthermore, if $4 worth of coke is not INCONSEQUENTIAL enough to be ignored, then the amendment is truly shown for what it is worth. Anyone who was appeased with Key’s capitulation; read this and weep!
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
Very bad law
This farcical law is actually administrative law, the kind that Inland Revenue, Welfare and many other government departments routinely engage in. Parliament gives them a general warrant and their executive policies then have the weight of law. The anti-smacking bill is the same, with the police now in the role of administrators.
Administrators of who? Well, of us, of course.
Dishonest law...
The way this law is being sold to the public is a lie - It's presented as a law to enable police to prosecute child abusers more effectively.
If police suspect you have abused your children they will only need to prove you used force with them (and they considered it not inconsequential) for you to be found guilty of abuse.
Would any other democratic country allow the "burden of proof" to be removed from a criminal law?
I believe the police will be instructed by the government to enforce a ban on smacking some time after this law has passed. The law with its' proposed amendment is stupid and evil and it concerns me that 20% of the population don't see the problem.
This issue was probably going to help National win the next election but they have lost the goodwill that they would have received from opposing the bill so we may be in for a few more years of deluded social(ist) engineering.