Monday, April 16, 2007
Massacre
More death in American Colleges
Blood spilled from early this morning in what authorities thought wa an isolated domestic incident. It was not. The assassin returned with an automatic weapon and intentionally slaughtered as many innocents as possible. Descriptions of the student as "Asian" could mean it was an issue of Homeland Security.
But, it is the over protective Homeland Security laws that could be seem as a factor in the response by authorities who would have categorised it as a "domestic" on some idiot scale, and not placed the Univesity on immediate emergency lockdown while the mass murderer was preparing for his major assault.
Heck, if I spent 300 billion on security I would expect to be able to stop a man carrying an automatic weapon on campus. The reactions of the students may seem a little surreal, unless you have been subjected to the sheer unreality and terror of being held at gunpoint, it may not seem logical that time kind of stops and one's actions may be based on panic instict rather than reason.
The very idea that the Government classifies threat without due process is why the investment in Homeland Security by constant paranoia is simply bad law.
The solution is to train people how to deal with the unexpected, not just provide a huge swallowing bureacracy. It is not identification of terrorists, it is civilizing the rest of us that is the real secret weapon in this "war on terror".
Thursday, April 12, 2007
I've moved on from smacking
I've moved on from smacking - Opinion: views on the news on Stuff.co.nz
There is a bill before parliament to remove section 59 exclusions to the crimes act that parents who inflict violence upon their children have escaped conviction. The use of "reasonable force" should no longer be available as a defence.
Many parents have united in asserting their right to "lightly smack" children and protested the "right to smack" with a march on Parliament with kids brandishing banners saying they wanted to retain the "right to be smacked".
Since the bill does not address smacking, the media calling it the "anti smacking bill" are misrepresenting the facts. The linked article by a parent explains, clearly.
Monday, April 02, 2007
The "Smacking Bill"
It is not a "Smacking Bill".
It is removal of a provision that means that parents who are violent to their children are simply not brought before the courts.
Maybe it should go further, but it does not.
Why all this debate about "Smacking" being some kind of holy ritual is beyond me, but each time you strike your kid you are basically teaching your kid to use tactics and naughty behaviour in opposition to your will. Yes I am a parent. I speak from experience.
Kids who are never ever smacked usually end up being very civil and kind individuals who excel at school. Hitting your kids makes them more stupid as it teaches them they are inferior. It teaches them to lash out at problems.
The protest to "retain the right to smack children" is absurd. No law banning smacking has been proposed. The state has a duty to provide protection to children from cruelty and in-bred habitual punishment.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Former detective named in sex scandal
Former detective named in sex scandal - New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz
Police image is getting a serious drubbing in the press over the public release of yet more evidence of use of batons and handcuffs as sex toys in group sex sessions. We do not believe the practise to be widespread but the paper reports fearlessly that it was happening as recent as 2002 (as though offences in the 1980s should be forgotten, as everyone wants to forget the 1980s, its hairdos, weird suburban sex parties, et al).
It is outrageous enough that this practice existed at all, but for them to make videos of it has added a Abu Griab dimension to the sordid affair.
"It has always been private business. There's no criminality. There's no story in it."
"It's nothing that doesn't happen in 500 houses, and probably your one." protested the officer in an attempt to deflect the attention." said the former detective sergeant who appeared in the video.
The idea that in 500 houses, police are conducting group sex sessions with their batons is a much more serious contention by this officer, but let's disagree. The idea that police may using weapons issued for law enforcement as a fetish may not be that suprising, but for them to make video of it can only bring the force into disrepute.
Publicising the video is the action of a woman who may have felt powerless for years in the circumstances that probably broke her marriage, and perhaps now, she is able to fight back?
It is worth a proper investigation.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Tinnie-house raiders vow to keep up fight
Tinnie-house raiders vow to keep up fight - 31 Mar 2007 - NZ Herald: New Zealand National news
Police are determined to clean up Otara "tinnie houses" where a legal secretary and her child were amoung those caught buying small quanities of cannabis. The price of a foil wrapped "tinnie" seems to be $20 but the real price to this woman was more obvious when she said that she did not want her picture taken by a newspaper photographer. She was speaking of her rights. The police told her she should not have been buying drugs if she wanted her rights respected.
The woman was one of forty people caught buying cannabis in Otara, during the past few weeks. Police say they will continue targeting drug buyers and sellers in Otara until the town is "off the map as a tinnie house destination".
One may assume, if they are addicted to cannabis that they would find another source, maybe it's out of Otara, and maybe it's not. We do not question the police enforcing the law. We question the public strategy.
P use is rife in South Auckland. P is a harmful drug that kills people and ruins lives. Cannnabis has a national organisation dedicated to its normalisation within the law because its use is widespread. The police action is not rational. Why target users and a tinnie house (carrying a stock of $460 worth of tinnies, and a hammer) with police resources that are famously overstretched, while only skimming the surface of a billion dollar P industry of evil dealers and heartless manufacturers, to target disobedient civilians?
It is not just wasteful of precious police resources, but pits 25% of the population who would prefer cannabis to be as legal as a glass of red wine over dinner against the forces of law and order. The police need the citizenry to never be afraid to report a suspected P dealer or P factory. P is a crime that occurs in the community and damages lives within a few short months of excess.
What evil is being conquered here? Driving potential informants underground is a terrible strategy. Perhaps the police think this s good PR for their image shot all to pieces by allegations of sexual humiliation (at best) or what most people perceive as pack rape at the hands of out-of-control power-happy police.
It is not just a waste of police resources. It damaging public loyalty to the forces that are there to protect them.
These facts together spell a PR disaster for the police.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Sports star's name suppression not backed by police
Sports star's name suppression not backed - New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz
It turns out that the police do not support name suppression for the sports star who is accused of rape.
A court official in Hamilton revealed that the intent of name suppression was to hide the sport the man played. But the Waikato Times published which team he played for, thus reducing the name suppression to no effect.
It seems like a murky case of contempt of court. Name suppression has its reasons; the presumption of innocence is more important to protect than naming anyone at all that is accused of crimes by anybody at all. The reputation of any man accused of rape is going to be tarnished.
It may also weaken the police case. Letting guilty rapists get away with it is an even worse outcome.
Swift justice for one and all - is the answer. It is not always helped by media speculation.
The media is there to report on the case after due process has occurred, not before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)