Act’s ally

Well one sector of society had to draw the short straw and get an Act Minister in charge of their area of interest, and this time it was local governments.  But it seems that one mayor, the one in the Rodney District, is looking forward to working with Rodney Hide.

“I am sure the new Minister brings with him the right mix of energy and enthusiasm to take on this role,” she explained.

Coincidentally the Mayor in question is Penny Webster, former ACT MP and champion of the controversial and possibly illegal Penlink road in the Whangaparaoa.

I guess that $360 million government expenditure won’t be peeled back then and can be added to the $1 billion that extra spending each year that David Garrett wants to spend to “fix the breakdown in law and order”. It seems some government expenditures may be safer than others from Rodney’s razor gang.

13 thoughts on “Act’s ally

  1. # Sapient Says:
    November 19th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    > You have heard of DWB; driving while black, now, with the police discretion we have SWB; Smacking While Black, and its best friend SWF; Smacking While Female. LOL.

    hmmm. do you have evidence that it is being enforced in this way?

  2. You have heard of DWB; driving while black, now, with the police discretion we have SWB; Smacking While Black, and its best friend SWF; Smacking While Female. LOL.

  3. Didn’t say the law was precise to start with.

    It was bad law to start with.

    Through imprecise construction, it provided for the guilty to go free more easily.

    Now through similar imprecise construction, it provides for the innocent to be prosecuted more easily.

    While the police are good at their jobs and honest judges prevail, the imprecision is comfortable. Give it time and just as some poor kid got clobbered with a bludgeon by parents trying to accomplish what I have NO idea, and the parents escaped punishment… some innocent parent and family will get hurt. Not a question of whether, it is a question of when.

    I think that the police power to exercise judgment was important. Police are expected to exercise that judgment but with it NOT written in, they have no legal cover for doing so. It can be called discrimination.. It is done with a wink and a nod…

    Call it cover… he can please the mob and poke us in the eye in one go.

    respectfully
    BJ

  4. “S59 was an imprecise law which to this day suffers from the problem that I cannot spank my child or slap his hand without running the risk that someone will call police ( maybe they are having a bad day ) , and if the police are having a bad day I wind up in court… WHETHER OR NOT my action was “legal” or not.”

    From the perspective of the law, there is no more likelihood that you will get arrested for a smack then before s59 was repealed. This is because the definition of assault has not changed, nor has the ability of the police to judge whether an assault has occurred. This is borne out by the fact that the feared increases in arrests have not occurred. If there have been more calls to the police (I don’t know that stat) it is more likely due to raised awareness ironically caused by the opponents campaign.

    “This is because the law is not well defined, and you know as well as I do, that modifications to the law which made it explicit about what was permissible were rejected by Bradford et.al. on the basis that they would be telling people how they could beat their kids.”

    Yup, but that doesn’t change what I say above.

    “I suggested changes. National suggested changes. The whole process could not, had it been staged and scripted from the start with the intent of alienating most of the electorate, have been more effective at doing just that. You may blame the media but good law does NOT require the police and the courts to tell you when something is illegal. The law itself is supposed to do that. The “loophole” could have been closed with a few definitions making the law more explicit.”

    There would always have been the need to use police judgment, because we’re talking about use of some level of force in the close relationship that exists between parent and child. There is just no black and white here, but shades of gray, and the police rightly don’t want to interfere without good justification. You can either set the bar very low and risk an unjust prosecution, or set it higher and risk allowing greater abuse. I prefer erring on the side of children. If that’s some evil ideology as many say (not you that I know of), so be it.

    “It was not good law as originally written. The amendments made failed to do anything but add to police powers and headaches,…”

    It didn’t add to their powers. Key’s inclusion of the use of police judgment was a ruse, as they already had that power. It gave him the cover he needed to support the change as he wanted to, while looking statesmanlike in the process. Good political move on his part.

    “(Key will get the referendum and will have the moral authority as a result, to change it and gain the wins that our intransigent defence of this bad law denied us).”

    He may well spin it that way, but its a terribly written referendum that will provide genuine moral authority for change.

  5. Valis

    S59 was an imprecise law which to this day suffers from the problem that I cannot spank my child or slap his hand without running the risk that someone will call police ( maybe they are having a bad day ) , and if the police are having a bad day I wind up in court… WHETHER OR NOT my action was “legal” or not. This is because the law is not well defined, and you know as well as I do, that modifications to the law which made it explicit about what was permissible were rejected by Bradford et.al. on the basis that they would be telling people how they could beat their kids.

    I suggested changes. National suggested changes. The whole process could not, had it been staged and scripted from the start with the intent of alienating most of the electorate, have been more effective at doing just that. You may blame the media but good law does NOT require the police and the courts to tell you when something is illegal. The law itself is supposed to do that. The “loophole” could have been closed with a few definitions making the law more explicit.

    Comparing S59 with the potential double win that we could have had with an explicit and concise law is enough to make me want to cry.

    Comparing our position now with the position we could have been in had we done it right, makes me nauseous.

    It was not good law as originally written. The amendments made failed to do anything but add to police powers and headaches, failed to make it explicit and even failed to make a permanent change (Key will get the referendum and will have the moral authority as a result, to change it and gain the wins that our intransigent defence of this bad law denied us).

    respectfully
    BJ

  6. No worries. I couldn’t even listen to the story, it is so awful. But why do you think repealing s59 had anything to do with good parents? It only affected those who had been arrested for the assault of a child and were on trial for this. Some people successfully used s59 to get off beating kids with pieces of wood and hoses. The point of the bill was to close this loophole.

  7. Valis

    My apologies if I came down on you. I was upset with the news.

    I am still annoyed with the Bradford bill; this seem to my understanding to aim for the wrong end of the audience; punishing the good parents. More work needs to be done at the other end to Nia Glassy. I don’t know why Bradford didn’t do this.

  8. “There is a difference between a smack as part of a loving relationship to teach the child and what happened to Nia Glassy. I would like to think that everyone who reads this blog understands that.”

    I certainly haven’t suggested otherwise.

    “Bradfords bill was part of the reason why the socialists (labour and greens) are not in government right now.”

    This is true, though all parties but one about to become government voted for it too. And as explained for months on this blog, the backlash was due in great part to a deliberate misinformation campaign regarding what S59 was about and this was abetted by a lazy media who lapsed in their responsibility even to get the basic facts across.”

    “Decent people do not subject any child to what Nia Glassy went through. Decent people do not need a law to tell them this is wrong.”

    Again no argument, and the same could be said for many laws, though we have them anyway, perhaps for the people who are not decent.

    “Why didn’t Bradford put forward a bill stopping the parents, like the parents of Nia Glassy from ever breding, or if they do from every being allowed to keep the children? Or, is this not PC?”

    If you can answer that question for John Key, or Rodney Hide, or all other members of Parliament, you might understand why Sue also hasn’t.

  9. Valis

    There is a difference between a smack as part of a loving relationship to teach the child and what happened to Nia Glassy. I would like to think that everyone who reads this blog understands that.

    Bradfords bill was part of the reason why the socialists (labour and greens) are not in government right now. Decent people do not subject any child to what Nia Glassy went through. Decent people do not need a law to tell them this is wrong.Why didn’t Bradford put forward a bill stopping the parents, like the parents of Nia Glassy from ever breding, or if they do from every being allowed to keep the children? Or, is this not PC?

  10. “Speaking of law and order, I cannot wait to hear how restorative justice is a better idea than locking up for life or hanging the killers of Nia Glassy.”

    I don’t think you’ll find many that want to defend that lot, not that I support hanging anyone. Using this case to argue against restorative justice, however, is a somewhat less than brilliant idea.

    “Further more, wasn’t Bradford’s bill supposed to stop all this?”

    No. It was meant to ensure people arrested for assault against children didn’t get off so easily during their trial. Shouldn’t that be something law and order types applaud?

  11. Speaking of law and order, I cannot wait to hear how restorative justice is a better idea than locking up for life or hanging the killers of Nia Glassy.

    I would also love to hear the reason why Lisa Kuka should be able to continue breeding given she has already produced five kids that she gave away before giving birth to Nia Glassy.

Comments are closed.