E-Politics
May 29th, 2007 at 9:32 pm by David FarrarBryce Edwards blogs on the growing use and influence of e-politics. A good round-up of what is happening and recommended reading.
I missed that last month Mainly Politics did a review of the party websites. His overall rankings are:
National 7.25
Greens 6.50
Labour 5.75
Maori 4.25
Progressive 3.25
United Future 3.25
NZ First 3.00
ACT 2.25
I recall once upon a time when the ACT website left all the others for dead in terms of functionality and content.
But talking of bad sites, I have to pan the All Our Rights website. It is proposing to end the defence of “homosexual panic” – where people get off murder charges on the grounds they lost control when hit on by a gay person. Now I am sympathetic to their cause, but their website lets them down badly.
The site claims this defence has been used many times, but doesn’t even have a single case study for people to read. It also doesn’t make clear the exact law change it is seeking. There is no statute that provides for a “homosexual panic” defence, so presumably they seek to end the defence of provocation. But this is not clear, and would of course affect many other types of cases.
They have a very sad story about a Stanley Waipouri who was murdered, but nowhere does it link in whether his killers tried to or succeeded in using HPD. In fact it seems the case has not even been heard yet, so what is the link to the campaign.
Also there is no info on who is behind the campaign and are members of the grassroots group.
I’m someone who is likely to support the campaign to abolish HPD, but the campaign website is so sub-standard it doesn’t give me the info I need to make that decision.
No Right Turn on the other hand is his normal mine of information, supplying almost all the info that the campaign website does not have.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:09 am
The current ACT website is a temporary placeholder site while the new one is being designed.
Says so right on the front page.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 1:31 am
It never used to say that it was a placeholder, that has just been added recently. It certainly wasn’t there when I did my initial website review anyway…
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 2:27 am
As far as I can remember it has been saying that for at least a few weeks. I think I first noticed it when all the formatting went bung.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 7:53 am
When Chris did the webpage review there was no statement about it being a temp webpage which shocked me considering how brilliant the ACT page was. I look forward to it being back up and functioning again!
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 8:08 am
So silly Mr Charles Chauvel wants people to put pressure on the inept Minister of Injustice to make “homosexual panic” a legal defence- even though there is not a legal precedence enshrined in law to justify the necessity of such a ludicrous proposal ?
There is nothing sacred about ‘the law’. Most laws are nowadays made by a small group of greedy, increasingly corrupt politicians and an army of unelected bureaucrats whose primary aim is to serve themselves.
‘The law’ is mostly nowadays designed to give these people power and wealth and to provide them with cushy jobs, lavish lifestyles and very generous expense accounts.
All our rights website clearly shows the unholy alliance between stupidity and subhuman liarbore lickspittles .
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Political Homosexuals pushing the “rights” barrow don’t want equal rights, they want more rights.
They cry about being marginalised, then use their “rights” to marginalise anyone who isn’t homosexual. (take your blog on gay club yesterday as a tiny example.)
Anyone blinded by their agenda is unlikely to see the truth. Instead of seeing the violence in our society, they see people out to get them personally. A paranoia of convenience, everything leading back to reinforce their chosen ideology.
If homophobia exists, then heterophobia surely does too. So many new words that mean nothing.
But I believe it’s all just people not liking one another very much, for whatever reason. No law yet that says a bloke has to like everyone.
Still, it isn’t just a gay thing. Most minorities go feral once they get some power over the majority. Hardly a new discovery.
It’s a bit of a worry that you feel disappointed that you can’t support their cause, David. Do you often wander around asking yourself how to further the ideals of minority groups, when there is no opportunity before you? Do you feel there is a world of suffering out there and you just must help them all?
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Horace there really has issues. To rant on about “they” and “their” agenda is silly. There are many different agendas for many different people. There is no a gay “they” then a “Jew” they.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 10:22 am
So silly Mr Charles Chauvel wants people to put pressure on the inept Minister of Injustice to make “homosexual panic” a legal defence
No D4J, quite the opposite – he want to scrap it as a defence.
D4J and Horace, the site is making people aware of an insane law. It’s not about taking over the world, but about human rights. Would you be happy with “heterosexual panic” as a defence for murder. Or “male panic” as a defence?
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Perhaps people need to more careful about who they hit on. I thought gays could “tell” who was and wasn’t (at least that I am sure that is what I have been told by gay friends). Avoid hitting on angry, straight guys (especially 16 year old street kids) and problem may be solved.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am
So Brian, if a lesbian gets hit on by a straight guy it’d be ok if she killed him because of heterosexual panic? Or maybe straight guys need to more [sic] careful about who they hit on. After all, can’t they tell?
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Brian – yes people should not hit on people who do not welcome the advances. But to claim justification for killing someone because they hit on you is stupid. Would you support lesbians being able to claim this as a defence because a straight man hit on them, and they killed him?
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Even with the ACT site being temporary, I still can’t understand the 4 for aesthetics, when compared to (for example) the 5 given to NZF. Also, the use of RSS should count towards something.
NZF’s looks like Winston coded it himself. In Firefox, some of the quotes on the left flow out of thire boxes etc. And, there are too many different fonts and sizes and weights. Ick.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
The defence doesn’t only work for the situation of killing gay men, or so I have read – it’s any situation where you ‘panic’ and kill someone, due to being ‘provoked’. I could just as easily be in a room surrounded by people with very strong views I disagree with, kill a few of them and then claim defence under the law.
That it’s being used (or so it is claimed) against homosexuals doesn’t make it alright, or something that can be ignored or shelved under the ‘gays-taking-over-the-world’ opinion as displayed by Horace – the law is pretty out of tune with what is expected in NZ. Provocation is not an acceptable defence for killing.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Section 169 of the Crimes act allows for compassion and understanding to be applied to murder cases. Not every person who comes before a court is a tower of intellectual and moral restraint. Provocation can and does mean a lot to people when firmly held beliefs and values are broken suddenly and completely by another party. This is a sensible part of our laws to help or justice system fully consider all of the factors in a crime.
Matt says: “Provocation is not an acceptable defence for killing.” The law doesn’t say that it is. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reduce all our laws to black and white, huh? Then we wouldn’t have to think at all, use discretion or exercise our capability for moral judgement – one of the things that seperates us from animals. We could do it by computer program. Damn morals! They stand in the way of the progress of human and gay rights!
Matt, it is about applying reasoned judgement to a case, not human rights and not gay rights – which is how the campaign to have it repealed or amended is being run.
Unfortunately, in todays politically correct climate, all we will now hear is:
“Oh lord won’t someone save the gays!”
at the expense of intelligent and reasoned debate. It has nothing much to do with them, but they’re using it for their own agenda. It’s a Smacking ban scenario all over again.
I doubt you’ll understand this, as you and others have failed to comprehend my first post and instead say that I think “gays are taking over the world”. Thanks for the laugh. Maybe it’s time homosexuals took a look at the world around them, huh? Yes, there are other people that this bill effects.
Section 169 is not a defence for killing. It can be used to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter for very sound reasons. But hell, lets mess with it because a myopic group of people want us to.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am
You are right David,
This would fall under a section 169 “Provocation” defense. Therefore, again you are right, it could not be scrapped without scrapping the whole provocation gambit. (This is being looked into – tentatively)
All Sec 169 does is downgrade murder to manslaughter, not effect an acquittal. It is not a ‘complete’ defense.
Provocation is extremely difficult to ‘get home’ on, With respect to Matt Pilott, he would certainly fail under his scenario.
Vote: