Comments on: Section 59

By: wizban

wizban — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:59:00 +0000

The idealist in me says “inforce the “reasonable force” part of the existing law properly and we wouldn’t have a problem”

The realist in me says “repeal section 59 and end the fake defence for assault”

I think it is great that this issue is getting this disscussion started.

By: peterquixote

peterquixote — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:38:45 +0000

jeez me dad catch me on computers .. he got wussian girls in its .. he going to give me a section 59 but i shows him and i says i donts tell the mum he gots the wussian bride to looks at and i gets to use computer ..and i donts get a section 59

By: Paul B

Paul B — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:10:23 +0000

On a slightly related note to my last post I make a statement: Just because laws currently exist that arn’t enforced isn’t an excuse to create new laws that arn’t enforced. Surely, more than anything, it’s a reason to go over our old out-of-date laws with a fine tooth comb, straighting out or removing altogether laws which arn’t used in present day.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:07:08 +0000

“it’s illegal to make a copy of a CD even if you own it”
Which is a stupid law. Archival copies of CD’s hurt no-one, yet it’s illegal. But, it’s not archival copies that the law is againest, it’s pirvacy, which is defined as making a copy of something and selling it to make a profit. So way isn’t the laws relating to this more specific?

Smacking a fork out of a childs hand whos about to stick it in an electrical socket is reasonable. Whipping a child with a hose because it annoyed you is not. However, for some, a grey area comes into it in resect to ‘physical disipline’. Now, to me, hitting a child to try and teach it something is fairly stupid. Sure it may learn ‘don’t do that’, or at least ‘don’t trust that person’, but it’s not learning, for example, ‘running away down the road is dangerous because there are cars that may not be able to see me, and I should stay close to my parents so that I’m protected’.

It seems to me that many NZ parents want to be able to continue using physical disipline, and although that seems barbaric to me, this is thier country too and they deserve to have legislation that protects thier way of life. However, I think most people can agree abuse is not justifiable, and I think reforming laws to enforce an anti-abuse stance is a step in the right direction, and I hope that some day smacking itself will be outlawed.

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:45:03 +0000

Yes, as in all of that, as I say in the linked post. (Note that the above is a trackback excerpt, not a comment.)

By: phil u

phil u — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:15:58 +0000

etcetera..as in the already mentioned cd burning..jaywalking..smoking cannabis..taking labels off mattresses etc etc etc..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

By: Philosophy, et cetera

Philosophy, et cetera — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:10:11 +0000

Unenforced Laws

I would expect that it’s a bad idea to have laws that are not going to be properly enforced. If we’re not willing to enforce it, then it shouldn’t be codified in our laws…

By: David Farrar

David Farrar — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 06:14:13 +0000

My reading of the editorial is that it will indeed make smacking illegal, but that people should not worry as the Police will not bother to prosecute.