Taking stock, what do we have now with the Key/Clark amendment?
I have no legal knowledge.
If a police officer can be persuaded that more than 'inconsequential' force has been used he or she will decide a prosecution is warranted.
What happens when the parent arrives in court? There is no longer a defence of reasonable force but can his lawyer then argue that the force used was in fact 'inconsequential' and his client wrongly prosecuted? Can the parent still request a jury trial? Are we back where we started from?
(I think I have just listened to Larry Baldock calling Newstalk ZB. He suggests Clark was facing a caucus revolt. Opposers of the bill were on the point of winning but thanks to John Key the legislation will now pass with the amendment.)
Update; From Stuff about the amendment, At the same time it did not define an acceptable level of violence against children, which would have pushed Ms Bradford to withdraw the bill completely.
Well, it does. The new acceptable level of violence will be whatever a cop decides is 'inconsequential'.
Can someone tell me if ACT is for or against this amendment? I can't see anything about it anywhere.....
ReplyDeleteAgainst James.
ReplyDeleteTa Lindsay....I was hoping so but was getting worried! ;-)
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment re the caucus revolt. Is the `iron maiden' starting on the slippery slope to an actual uprising of the hitherto obedient sycophants?
ReplyDeleteIs there a space we can watch?
I am sorry, thsi is one time when Keys should have avoided being statesmanlike and been a political hound. The sheeple wont remember this come election time. He wasted a great opportunityand also looks like to have contributed to some really bad law.
ReplyDeleteBrian Smaller
Don't apologise Brian. I agree 100%.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately (typically) looking at a Stuff poll it seems most people have bought this amendment as a good thing.
It is a good thing. And about time too!!
ReplyDeleteThis is subjective law and therefore bad law.Good law is objective...meaning everyone knows what is right and wrong before an action takes place.This abortion of a cop out leaves parents in a massive grey area.I'll bet money police officers,in light of the Kahui case, will cover their butts and prosecute in many cases.
ReplyDeleteYes, and it may help stop more Kahui tragedies - subjective or not !!
ReplyDelete`section 59 survivor'
ReplyDeleteSurely you must realise that no law will stop the Kahui, Lilybing and other such tragedies. The perpetrators in these cases have no respect for any laws or their children.
It will not stop it - but it certainly will help to stop such tragedies. It will help stop SOME children being bashed under the guise of 'discipline'. (and maimed psychologically for life or even killed)
ReplyDelete"It will not stop it - but it certainly will help to stop such tragedies."
ReplyDeleteAnyone else see the massive contradiction in that sentence...?
`section 59 survivor'
ReplyDeleteOpen your eyes - it will not stop anything.
All it is is some `control freaks' namely Bradford and Clark meddling in the lives of all New Zealanders.
I think you should open yours!!
ReplyDeleteI rest my case.
ReplyDelete`There are none so blind as those who do not want to see'!!!!!
There is absolutely no comparison between a `smack' to correct bad behaviour by a child and the Kahui tragedy.
I think I remember you James. Were you the pig-ignorant person who hated my self-injury story??
ReplyDeletepdm,
ReplyDeleteI think you are a case. Light smacking is still legal under the new act. It is hitting that is now outlawed.
I think I remember you James. Were you the pig-ignorant person who hated my self-injury story??
ReplyDeleteRefresh my memory.....if it was a whiny boo hoo poor me blub then yes it probably was..
Section 59 Survivor
ReplyDeleteI give up - you are obviously a very thick labour sycophant!!!!!
What does it mean?
ReplyDeleteLawyers make even more money...
Poor choice of words!
ReplyDeletePerhaps:
Lawyers get their snouts even deeper into the trough!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAdmin,
ReplyDeleteYou did the right thing. I was watching developments here and the impending confrontation would have helped no one.
"You did the right thing. I was watching developments here and the impending confrontation would have helped no one."
ReplyDeletePersonally I would have loved it!
Hit em high, hit em high...hit em low, hit em low etc.. ;-)
But Lindsay's blog....Lindsay's rules.
You may have loved it James, but it would not have been appropriate for anyone reading this blog.
ReplyDelete"You may have loved it James, but it would not have been appropriate for anyone reading this blog."
ReplyDeleteTsk....Liberal!!!
;-)
Sue Bradford blames the Kahui case on some people not having a stake in the "upside" of our society. It is the systems fault not theirs (according to her).
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2006/09/06/sue-b-on-poverty-2/
Google Sue B on poverty
ReplyDelete