Graffiti

Tagging, is it a crime?

MainPage - IPRED wiki

IPRED wiki - The European Union appears to be tightening laws relating to copyright and piracy. But by failing to differentiate fair use and piracy, does this directive endanger important civil liberties? Will this create a "Prosecution Paradise" where the law becomes unbalanced - it becomes too easy to jail people by pretext because everyone is guilty of something. There is a name for that kind of authority. It is totalitarianism by blunt instrument. All kinds of law suits may whittle the law down to human proportions, but what kind of environment do civilians suffer in the process?

Smacking and parental rights

Scoop: Marc Alexander - Smacking away parental rights

There is a law before NZ parliament to outlaw parents who hit their children.

Reactionary forces have voted against this justify it by saying hitting children is a parental right. A parent should be able to choose their weapons, select how to discipline children. The crimes act of 1961 says that a parent is justified in the use of reasonable force as correction towards the child. Marc Alexander in this article asks how hard is it to understand the meaning of "reasonable"? He says this law is adequate. It is not.

Modern thinking on the subject is that parents using ANY violent force against their children will not only make the child backward in life, but it forces the child into a set of calculations that eventually result in criminal actions. Violence is wrong, because children learn by example and hitting children begets a violent society. Extreme cases must be prosecuted. Parents need to evolve their disciple so the child is intelligent enough to solve problems. Children who are hit become teenagers who run away and commit crimes. It is too damaging not to change the law.

Keeping people "in line" is the language of slavery. It is the job of a parent to bring the child up to their best of their ability. Any culture of accepting violence toward children is regressive, socially. Child abuse is an intergenerational disease. The final result is that the child, now an adult, abuses their elderly parents.

Sue Bradford, the Greens MP that has put up the Anti Smacking bill has suffered death threats from irate parents. This is in itself evidence of why the law needs to be stronger so that very severe cases of child abuse as punishment can be prosecuted.

Right wing media claim that the bill removes a fundamental right of parents - to hit their own children. I question that parents have any such "right". Children do not belong to parents. It is time we saw children as our future.

Why BZP ?

Mind-altering drugs: does legal mean safe? - drugs-alcohol - 29 September 2006 - New Scientist - New Zealander Matt Bowden solved his dependence on hard drugs by using BZP - and started marketing the legal high to New Zealand as "harm reduction". Now, six years later shrill calls to ban it regularly hit the media. But it may be stopping P from becoming more wide spread. Imagine how much more money would flow into the drug mafia if P were as popular as BZP.

Drug Harm Scale

Check this graph - what are the relative harm factors of various drugs and alcohol? New scientist reveals how alcohol is more harmful than LSD, tobacco is more harmful than cannabis or ecstacy. Even Ritalin is more harmful than Ecstasy.

Website threats to MP

Police called over website threats against smacking bill MP - 21 Feb 2007 - Political News - New Zealand Herald It is evident that those parents who want to avoid prosecution under th crimes act for abusing children with violence are perhaps a little out of control when they start making threats to assinate an MP. The infamous CYFSWATCH blog was shut down by Google and although we are against censorship, hate speech is worse. Threatening our democracy with terrorism is not the answer. Parents who want to retain the right to hit their children are actively manufacturing criminals and future parents who can only control their children with threats of violence. The threat to assinate an MP is evidence that there is a concerted lobby to maintain a status quo that is not reasonable and is also very harmful. CYFS has its faults but it is better to have it than throw 14 year olds into jail for crimes like tagging and minor offenses. We need our jails to house violent criminals, and if that includes parents that beat their kids up, then at least they will not go out hunting MPs.

Anti Smacking Bill

How your MP voted

FOR 70

Labour (49): Rick Barker, Tim Barnett, David Benson-Pope, Mark Burton, Chris Carter, Steve Chadwick, Charles Chauvel, Ashraf Choudhary, Helen Clark, Clayton Cosgrove, Michael Cullen, David Cunliffe, Lianne Dalziel, Harry Duynhoven, Ruth Dyson, Russell Fairbrother, Darien Fenton, Martin Gallagher, Phil Goff, Mark Gosche, Ann Hartley, George Hawkins, Dave Hereora, Marian Hobbs, Pete Hodgson, Parekura Horomia, Darren Hughes, Annette King, Shane Jones, Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, Moana Mackey, Steve Maharey, Nanaia Mahuta, Trevor Mallard, Sue Moroney, Damien O'Connor, Mahara Okeroa, David Parker, Jill Pettis, Lynne Pillay, Mita Ririnui, Ross Robertson, Dover Samuels, Lesley Soper, Maryan Street, Paul Swain, Judith Tizard, Margaret Wilson, Dianne Yates.

Greens (6): Sue Bradford, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Nandor Tanczos, Metiria Turei.

National (6): Paula Bennett, Jackie Blue, Chester Borrows, Paul Hutchison, Simon Power, Katherine Rich.

Maori Party (4): Te Ururoa Flavell, Hone Harawira, Pita Sharples, Tariana Turei.

New Zealand First (3): Doug Woolerton, Brian Donnelly, Barbara Stewart.

Progressives (1): Jim Anderton.

United Future (1): Peter Dunne.

AGAINST 51

National (42): Shane Ardern, Chris Auchinvole, David Bennett, Mark Blumsky, Gerry Brownlee, David Carter, John Carter, Bob Clarkson, Jonathan Coleman, Judith Collins, Brian Connell, Jacqui Dean, Bill English, Christopher Finlayson, Craig Foss, Jo Goodhew, Sandra Goudie, Tim Groser, Nathan Guy, John Hayes, Phil Heatley, Tau Henare, John Key, Colin King, Wayne Mapp, Murray McCully, Allan Peachey, Eric Roy, Tony Ryall, Katrina Shanks, Clem Simich, Lockwood Smith, Nick Smith, Georgina te Heuheu, Lindsay Tisch, Anne Tolley, Chris Tremain, Nicky Wagner, Kate Wilkinson, Maurice Williamson, Pansy Wong, Richard Worth.

ACT (2): Rodney Hide, Heather Roy.

New Zealand First (4): Peter Brown, Ron Mark, Pita Paraone, Winston Peters.

United Future (2): Gordon Copeland, Judy Turner.

Independent (1): Taito Phillip Field.

Have you been stung by exorbitant bank charges? | | Guardian Unlimited Business

Have you been stung by exorbitant bank charges? | | Guardian Unlimited Business

In Fraud Case, 7 Years in Jail for Contempt - New York Times

In Fraud Case, 7 Years in Jail for Contempt - New York Times - no justice is bad justice. This man has been imprisoned for his crime, even if he is not found guilty of charges other than conspiracy that he has given in a plea bargain. What kind of representation results in that kind of result? Justice is not served by a judiciary that allow de facto punishment.

The Age of Accountability

Twelve-year-olds should be accountable - top youth judge - 16 Feb 2007 - National - with the age of consent at 16, driving at 15, and alcohol at 18 - a judge proposes the lowering of the bar for the age of criminal responsibility from 14 year to 12 years. P use in lower socioeconomic families and exposure of children to P manufacture and distrubution enterprises by criminal families certainly make this seem like a good idea. The CYFS (Child Youth and Family) system acts as a buffer between troubled families and the justice system. Some say it does not operate all that well. Some say that it does.

The problem with CYFS and youth justice is that there is no handbook that tells you how to deal with a criminal 12 year old. "Its the parents!" you hear that one on talkback all the time. It is not always the parents - sometimes it is the child acting out criminality based on cultural norms expected by their contemporaries and drug use amoungst teenagers is a case in point. There is much right wing uproar about moral issues - but it is the formation of stable families that promote traditional values that is the task these moralists fail to address - it is all great to criticise those who are behind in the wealth stakes - but what about criminal children who are wealthy? Should they get the same protection from the law as 12 and 13 year old taggers, vandals and miscreants?

This is the start of a very dangerous trend. 12 year olds are afforded education. 17 year olds are afforded justice. If by the age of 17 the education does not work, then personal responsibility can be enforced upon the young adult. But at 12 years old, there is no hope that the child can gain in adult responsibility, even if they are playing with guns and drugs.

The CYFS system is not perfect but it is better than jailing 12 year olds. The judiciary could make CYFS into a political football, but a clear coherent policy that gradually improves the situation for our young people may do better. CYFS is a good idea. It is a large organisation and does have a variety of strengths and weaknesses.

But it is corrective in nature. We should also examine schools to see why they are not equiping children with the tools of a good education so they do not turn to drugs or crime as source of sustenance when they grow up.