Euthanasia case in NZ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2015, 07:53 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 07:18 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  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.
Police don't dictate the law. If its illegal, it's illegal regardless if a particular police officer cares to support or ignore a charge.
Our police officers are not qualified to define the law, they aren't Judge Dredd, nor do we want Judge Dredd.
This opens up to corruption and racial discrimination. Perhaps Maoris are more likely to be charged by white police officers whereas whites in affluent neighborhoods aren't likely to be charged. It's at the discretion of the police officer so no-one can objectively complain about the decisions made by the police officer.
It makes parenting involving smacking an illegal option regardless of whether a person is charged or not.
The public clearly voted that this is not the purpose of our government that instead it is the domain of each parent.

Quote: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.
No one really cares what John Key said it was for.
What is important is that a Nanny State law is in place and gives the police too much power.

(06-06-2015 07:18 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  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.
The government acted undemocratically and put in place an unnecessary and unwanted law.

(06-06-2015 07:18 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You can still normally smack ya kid.
Not legally.

Whether we get charged for it or not is apparently up to the police officer rather than the judges.

(06-06-2015 07:18 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
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.
Nah, if kids had broken bones or serious injuries then the abuser was charged. At no point was this ever considered acceptable corrective spanking.


(06-06-2015 07:18 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It was common sense and the right thing to do.
The common sense of 87% of the voting public suggests otherwise.

(06-06-2015 07:18 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's always about National hate. National did this, John Key did that..
No... 113 members of parliament did that.
I don't hate National, I've voted for them many times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 07:53 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
Guys. The referendum and the law are essentially unrelated. The text of the referendum and the text of the law are unconnected. The referendum asked about cases that do not constitute assault. The law removes protection that was previously in place for parents who assault their children for corrective purposes. There is no law against smacking children in New Zealand. There is a law against assault that has no loophole for parental correction.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
06-06-2015, 09:17 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(29-05-2015 03:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This article pleads for the "sanctity of life" and state that the author finds euthanasia offensive.

Well then. He is completely free to not use it.

Popcorn I put more thought into fiction than theists put into reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes CleverUsername's post
06-06-2015, 10:50 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
Quote:Police don't dictate the law. If its illegal, it's illegal regardless if a particular police officer cares to support or ignore a charge.

The Police enforce the law and they have discretion to enforce or not.

Quote:Our police officers are not qualified to define the law, they aren't Judge Dredd, nor do we want Judge Dredd.

We're not asking them to define the law.
I do however believe they, and any normal person, can determine the difference between a parent smacking their child normally on the ass and a parent repetitively putting full force into hitting their child with a jug cord.
And (4) allows for that common sense discretion.

This isn't hard to understand and yet here you are struggling to understand such basic law principles.

Quote:It's at the discretion of the police officer so no-one can objectively complain about the decisions made by the police officer.

Police, not a single police officer...
Any reported case would be looked into (it has to be) and Police would decide from that to charge or not.

Quote:It makes parenting involving smacking an illegal option regardless of whether a person is charged or not.

Just like going 1km/ph over the speed limit, j-walking etc...

Quote:The public clearly voted that this is not the purpose of our government that instead it is the domain of each parent.

Nope. Half the voting public voted based on wrong information.

Quote:No one really cares what John Key said it was for.
What is important is that a Nanny State law is in place and gives the police too much power.

See, National hate. Again, 113/120 members of parliament.
It's not a nanny sate law, it's a law that extends the same rights adults have to children while allowing for parents to reasonably smack their children.

Quote:The government acted undemocratically and put in place an unnecessary and unwanted law.

Some times the best option is the least popular. Slavery in America for example, that shit caused a war. The governments job is to safeguard society, that is its primary goal. Economy is thrown in there and a bunch of other stuff but safety is the first point of interest. This law is necessary to safeguard vulnerable members of our society. You want to make examples about white cops persecuting Maori's, a majority exerting it's dominance over a minority??? And yet you are saying that 56% of the adult population should dictate what happens to children??
You see the hypocrisy in that?

Quote:Not legally.

Whether we get charged for it or not is apparently up to the police officer rather than the judges.

If it's reasonable than you wont be charged.
Just like I'm not about to get a ticket for riding my bike on the footpath despite being illegal (literally, I ride past cops walking along all the time). Or you're not about to get a ticket for going 1km/ph over the speed limit. etc...

I don't think you know how society works. That or you're just stupid.

Quote:The common sense of 87% of the voting public suggests otherwise.

No. Those people were grossly misinformed. As seen by your comments.
Common sense is not determined by popularity.



Educate yourself, I'm sick of repeating myself.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2015, 11:04 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(06-06-2015 10:50 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  ...while allowing for parents to reasonably smack their children.
It is illegal in NZ for a parent to smack their child.

(06-06-2015 10:50 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  And yet you are saying that 56% of the adult population should dictate what happens to children??
You see the hypocrisy in that?
100% of NZers had the ability to vote. Of those that voted 87% didn't want to criminalise smacking of ones children. A mere 13% thought we ought to make it illegal.

BTW, more people turned out for this referendum than the turn out that we have for a general election.

(06-06-2015 10:50 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:The common sense of 87% of the voting public suggests otherwise.

No. Those people were grossly misinformed. As seen by your comments.
Common sense is not determined by popularity.
This is a joke right?
What is your definition of common? Minority point of view i.e. 13%
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2015, 01:16 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
Quote:It is illegal in NZ for a parent to smack their child.

(4)

Quote:100% of NZers had the ability to vote. Of those that voted 87% didn't want to criminalise smacking of ones children. A mere 13% thought we ought to make it illegal.

And 87% were misinformed.

Quote:This is a joke right?

I ask myself that same question whenever I read your posts on this anti-smacking shit.

Quote:What is your definition of common? Minority point of view i.e. 13%

common sense*

Common sense says that when 87% of voters are horrible misinformed about what they are voting for it is common sense to ignore them and make the common sense decision to keep the common sense law into effect that protects some of our most vulnerable members of society. It's basic common sense.


Now shoo and don't come back until you educate yourself as to this topic you're trying to talk about.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
07-06-2015, 02:56 AM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
I know little about the issue at hand, but I will repeat: governance by referenda is bound to be a cock-up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
07-06-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(07-06-2015 01:16 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:It is illegal in NZ for a parent to smack their child.

(4)
Item 4 does not make it legal for a parent to smack their child.
It just states that the police officer can choose to not prosecute complaints against a parent. This gives the police officer "Judge" responsibilities.
Of course they were already doing that regarding prostitution (before it was legal) and for recreational marijuana smoking and for speeding etc. Police have always had some ability to make judgement calls. However, in domestic abuse cases police cannot drop a case if the victim decides that they want to press charges. Item 4 here says that it is at the police officer's discression if he/she wants to take the case forward regardless if the victim is wanting to press charges.
In a way it makes sense because you don't want to waste court time will stupid accounts of smarmy little brats calling the police on their mum and dad. This in itself shows that the law is stupid and shouldn't be in place.
But provision (4) is even worse because it gives the police officer unprecedented power. It allows for corruption and racism and all sorts of problems.
The law itself is unwanted, unnecessary and stupid and provision 4 is a knee jerk inclusion as a poor attempt to fool people to accept it. People with brains weren't fooled by (4).

(07-06-2015 01:16 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  common sense*
It seems that by your definition of "common" is that you mean it is aligned to your own opinion rather than aligned the opinions of the vast majority. Laughable!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2015, 05:02 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(07-06-2015 01:46 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-06-2015 01:16 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  (4)
Item 4 does not make it legal for a parent to smack their child.
It just states that the police officer can choose to not prosecute complaints against a parent. This gives the police officer "Judge" responsibilities.
Of course they were already doing that regarding prostitution (before it was legal) and for recreational marijuana smoking and for speeding etc. Police have always had some ability to make judgement calls. However, in domestic abuse cases police cannot drop a case if the victim decides that they want to press charges. Item 4 here says that it is at the police officer's discression if he/she wants to take the case forward regardless if the victim is wanting to press charges.
In a way it makes sense because you don't want to waste court time will stupid accounts of smarmy little brats calling the police on their mum and dad. This in itself shows that the law is stupid and shouldn't be in place.
But provision (4) is even worse because it gives the police officer unprecedented power. It allows for corruption and racism and all sorts of problems.
The law itself is unwanted, unnecessary and stupid and provision 4 is a knee jerk inclusion as a poor attempt to fool people to accept it. People with brains weren't fooled by (4).

(07-06-2015 01:16 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  common sense*
It seems that by your definition of "common" is that you mean it is aligned to your own opinion rather than aligned the opinions of the vast majority. Laughable!

I see you still haven't educated yourself.
Go away and educate yourself before you try talking about a topic you clearly know little about.
Once you do that you can come back and try again.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2015, 05:15 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(07-06-2015 05:02 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I see you still haven't educated yourself.
Go away and educate yourself before you try talking about a topic you clearly know little about.
Once you do that you can come back and try again.
Laughable!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: