Euthanasia case in NZ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 07:19 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(05-06-2015 02:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is illegal to smack kids in NZ.
If you do so then you are breaking the law. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Are you suggesting that our politicians create a law and then inform the public that it is OK to break this new law? What credibility does that give to our law makers and our legal system?

You obviously haven't even read the law, just like 80-90% of people that voted in that referendum.

educate yourself

(4)To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”



Going 1km/ph over the speed limit is technically against the law and yet nobody gets picked up for it (short of Christmas and other holidays when Police to pushing hard). Normally they don't even bother until you're going 10+km/ph.

Again, the law is not out to persecute all parents. It is out to close a loophole.
And even if it did say what you think it says (even though it doesn't) I don't see how that would be a bad thing.

You get off on hitting your kids or something?

I will say this if a referendum passed at 80% against a motion and the government still passed it anyway they should be disbanded regardless of how good a law is. Either the government represents the will of the people or it is rogue.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
06-06-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 07:19 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You obviously haven't even read the law, just like 80-90% of people that voted in that referendum.
These items are the problem
Quote:“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
This rules out smacking for the purpose of correction.

Quote:“(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”
This makes a mockery of the law, justice system and courts. It gives our police the ability to be judges and to overrule or ignore the law.


But the worst of it is that in a democratic country with a resounding majority vote, 87% is unheard of regarding getting agreement on something. National party got into power with much less than this.
Our government decides they know best about how parents are to parent their own children.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 04:43 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
Stephen Hawking on euthanasia:

euthanasia

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
06-06-2015, 06:39 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 01:38 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(06-06-2015 07:19 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You obviously haven't even read the law, just like 80-90% of people that voted in that referendum.

educate yourself

(4)To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”



Going 1km/ph over the speed limit is technically against the law and yet nobody gets picked up for it (short of Christmas and other holidays when Police to pushing hard). Normally they don't even bother until you're going 10+km/ph.

Again, the law is not out to persecute all parents. It is out to close a loophole.
And even if it did say what you think it says (even though it doesn't) I don't see how that would be a bad thing.

You get off on hitting your kids or something?

I will say this if a referendum passed at 80% against a motion and the government still passed it anyway they should be disbanded regardless of how good a law is. Either the government represents the will of the people or it is rogue.

The people didn't get the correct information. It was spun so badly in the media that you get people like Stevil here who thought it was out to punish every parent for anything. And 80+% of the adult population voted against it. It's a law that effects children.

Read the law, there is literally nothing bad about it. If you read the law you'll see how badly informed the public were to vote against it.

And referendums are stupid because they have to happen if you get a certain number of signatures.

Quote:This rules out smacking for the purpose of correction.

Yes, but (4) so...

Quote:This makes a mockery of the law, justice system and courts. It gives our police the ability to be judges and to overrule or ignore the law.

No it doesn't. This is how the law works. Again I go back to the speed limit example. On a normal day if you're going 5km/ph over the limit you're not gonna get pulled up or zapped by a speed camera and yet you are breaking the law.
The Police have discretion to not chase you and give you a ticket.

Discretion is vital and very important. It adds common sense to the law such as in this case where if you smack your kid for the purpose of correction and it was just a smack on the ass you're not gonna be prosecuted as a criminal and get done for child abuse.

Learn to law.

Quote:But the worst of it is that in a democratic country with a resounding majority vote, 87% is unheard of regarding getting agreement on something. National party got into power with much less than this.

The public, as evident by your actions here and the fact that 87% voted against this perfectly reasonable law, were horribly misinformed. National did the right thing.

Quote:Our government decides they know best about how parents are to parent their own children.

Except it doesn't stop you from smacking your children so...

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 06:43 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 06:39 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(06-06-2015 01:38 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I will say this if a referendum passed at 80% against a motion and the government still passed it anyway they should be disbanded regardless of how good a law is. Either the government represents the will of the people or it is rogue.

The people didn't get the correct information. It was spun so badly in the media that you get people like Stevil here who thought it was out to punish every parent for anything. And 80+% of the adult population voted against it. It's a law that effects children.

Read the law, there is literally nothing bad about it. If you read the law you'll see how badly informed the public were to vote against it.

And referendums are stupid because they have to happen if you get a certain number of signatures.

Doesn't matter what was spun if 80% of voters went against a motion and you pass it anyway you have gone rogue and no longer take your edict to rule from your citizens. Regardless of how noble your intentions when you directly impose your will against the wishes of your citizenry you are no longer legitimately representing their wishes.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
06-06-2015, 06:51 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 06:43 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(06-06-2015 06:39 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  The people didn't get the correct information. It was spun so badly in the media that you get people like Stevil here who thought it was out to punish every parent for anything. And 80+% of the adult population voted against it. It's a law that effects children.

Read the law, there is literally nothing bad about it. If you read the law you'll see how badly informed the public were to vote against it.

And referendums are stupid because they have to happen if you get a certain number of signatures.

Doesn't matter what was spun if 80% of voters went against a motion and you pass it anyway you have gone rogue and no longer take your edict to rule from your citizens. Regardless of how noble your intentions when you directly impose your will against the wishes of your citizenry you are no longer legitimately representing their wishes.

Nope, it's not black and white. The law is obviously good for society. The government some times needs to do unpopular things for the sake of safety of society. Besides, only 56% of capable voters turned out, so that 87% is of half the voting population. And as I said before, it is a law protecting those that can't vote AND the population was grossly misinformed.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 06:59 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
Oh, and 113 out of 120 members of parliament voted the law into effect so...
The National hate is rather unjustified.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 06:59 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 06:51 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(06-06-2015 06:43 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Doesn't matter what was spun if 80% of voters went against a motion and you pass it anyway you have gone rogue and no longer take your edict to rule from your citizens. Regardless of how noble your intentions when you directly impose your will against the wishes of your citizenry you are no longer legitimately representing their wishes.

Nope, it's not black and white. The law is obviously good for society. The government some times needs to do unpopular things for the sake of safety of society. Besides, only 56% of capable voters turned out, so that 87% is of half the voting population. And as I said before, it is a law protecting those that can't vote AND the population was grossly misinformed.

There was a referendum where the public voted directly for this law and overwhelmingly went against it. Doesn't matter what percentage showed up as long as everyone had the opportunity to do so. The fact that the government passed it against the results will probably end up invalidating it if it is ever enforced thus making this far far worse than had they just gone back and redone the law to clear up the issues everyone has with it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 07:06 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 06:51 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  ... AND the population was grossly misinformed.
NZ public aren't stupid, we knew completely what the law was (is) about. It's about government intruding into the rights of parents. It's an unnecessary and unwanted law. It's down the path of nanny state. This law was all about Key and his will on the people. It was undemocratic and unwanted.

(06-06-2015 06:59 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Oh, and 113 out of 120 members of parliament voted the law into effect so...
The National hate is rather unjustified.
This isn't about National hate, I don't know where this gem has come from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 07:18 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 06:59 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(06-06-2015 06:51 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Nope, it's not black and white. The law is obviously good for society. The government some times needs to do unpopular things for the sake of safety of society. Besides, only 56% of capable voters turned out, so that 87% is of half the voting population. And as I said before, it is a law protecting those that can't vote AND the population was grossly misinformed.

There was a referendum where the public voted directly for this law and overwhelmingly went against it. Doesn't matter what percentage showed up as long as everyone had the opportunity to do so. The fact that the government passed it against the results will probably end up invalidating it if it is ever enforced thus making this far far worse than had they just gone back and redone the law to clear up the issues everyone has with it.

This was back in 2009.
Referendums don't hold any weight. The government is not required by law to follow them. And to suggest that a referendum result could be used in a court of law as a defense is fucking stupid.

It's really simple to understand so I will lay it out for you.

1) People were getting away with assaulting their children and claim it was for corrective purposes. I'm taking beating their children, hitting them with jug cords etc..

2) The government closed said loophole with section 59 but added (4) (as shown above) to allow for police discretion as so not every parent would be charged with child abuse for normally smacking their kids.

3) People are retards and only read (1) and (2) of section 59 and flipped shit.

4) Media blew it way out of proportion, nobody bothered to read (4)

5) Some liberal fucks got a bunch of signatures because everyone was misinformed and nobody actually bothered to physically read the law themselves and forced a referendum.

6) Said referendum happened because required number of signatures were achieved. Tax payer money was wasted because of liberal fucks.

7) 87% of 56% of the voter population voted no.

8) The government said, it's a law that protects children, your reasoning for saying no is based on misinformation and so the law will stand.

9) People like Stevil have a fucking cry.

10) The government did the right thing, they made a law that protects our most vulnerable, and yet the government gets flak despite doing the right fucking thing.


Quote:NZ public aren't stupid

Yes they are.

Quote:we knew completely what the law was (is) about.

No you didn't/don't. You obviously never read (4) just like everyone else.

Quote:It's about government intruding into the rights of parents.

No it's not, it's closing a loophole that stops people beating their kids with a jug cord. You can still normally smack ya kid.

Quote:It's an unnecessary and unwanted law.

Considering there were cases where people were getting away with assaulting their children, beating them up badly, and getting away with it under "corrective" defense shows that it is very necessary.

Quote:It's down the path of nanny state.

No it's not.

Quote:This law was all about Key and his will on the people.

113/120 members of parliament voted for this law.

Quote:It was undemocratic and unwanted.

It was common sense and the right thing to do.

Quote:This isn't about National hate, I don't know where this gem has come from.

It's always about National hate. National did this, John Key did that..
No... 113 members of parliament did that.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: