If you break the law, are you committing a criminal offence?
If you are in possession of cannabis, are you breaking the law?
If you commit a criminal offence, are you a criminal?
Update: Replace "in possession of cannabis" with "smacking your kids", ask the questions again, but don't ask Sue Bradford for a straight answer.
Why? As she told Sean Plunket this morning if you give your kid light tap on the bum you are a criminal, meaning you have broken the law.
Initially she said smacking is not a [criminal] offence (so it can't be against the law - so why are you a criminal if you smack?).
But she also said smacking is outlawed (so it IS a criminal offence).
Then she implied that a very light smack is not illegal (so it's not a criminal offence, but you are a criminal if you do it because it is outlawed, although not illegal ).
She also said a person who gives their kid a light tap on the bum was a criminal (now I'm REALLY confused, given that she just said it wasn't an offence, because it wasn't illegal, although outlawed ).
But she then implied the law is "very clear".
All in a couple of minutes.
If Sue Bradford can't explain the implications of her own law, how does she expect anyone else to?
[More on the referendum over here.]
Labels: s59, Sue Bradford
Why aren't pieces like this is the mainstream media?
Why are we subjected to non-stop wafflings about vague referenda questions and not examination of what is said?
Fuckssake, it's all too sad to contemplate.
P.S. Excellent work, for what it's worth.
So, are you saying that we should re-ask the question as: "Should possession of marijuana, as part of good recreational activity, be a criminal offence in NZ?"
I think that's the parallel, isn't it, with the child discipline question's automatic presumption that there is such a thing as smacking which is "good parental correction"?
Not entirely, the the Greens have advocated for a law decriminalising cannabis so those possessing lighter drugs - as opposed to heroin - are not prosecuted, but advocated for a law where light smacking - as opposed to child abuse - is prosecutable under law, with no defence in court.
Hardly consistant. And it's leader is a lawyer.
Not really the point I was making.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]