Little on the presumption of innocence

July 11th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Meet your next Justice Minister people. The Herald reports:

Labour’s justice spokesman did not think the party’s proposal would lead to more innocent people being convicted.

“I don’t see why. You’re assuming that there is a propensity to lay false complaints. There is no evidence pointing to that.”

So Labour’s next Justice Minister thinks that an accusation is all you need to convict someone, as there are no false complaints.

Why doesn’t he go the whole hog, and save us the expense of trials. You’re accused, and you’re automatically guilty. Bang.

Again I urge everyone to make sure people understand that if Labour is elected, you will need to prove your innocence if you have sex with someone and are accused of .

David Cunliffe has started to back away from the policy, but Andrew Little has confirmed it is official policy and is obviously still extremely wedded to it.

I would have thought Mr Little would not have to think too far back in Labour’s recent past to think of how stupid it is to have a presumption of guilt based on allegation.

I am staggered that this policy got approved by the Labour Party. It is horrendous and wrong. Unless they rule it out totally, then don’t vote for them if you believe in the presumption of innocence.

Tags: ,

67 Responses to “Little on the presumption of innocence”

  1. OneTrack (2,754 comments) says:

    “I am staggered that this policy got approved by the Labour Party.”

    I’m not. I am well past expecting any sort of coherent thought out of Labour 2014. The sooner they turn the lights out and try again (New Labour 2 ?) , the better.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. NK (1,102 comments) says:

    You’re a thief and a fraudster, Farrar.

    Prove that you aren’t.

    Apropos: Labour Party policy thinking.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Psycho Milt (2,347 comments) says:

    But scrapping the right to silence is completely kosher and something we should be happy see coming from someone wanting to hold a ministerial warrant, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. lilman (914 comments) says:

    Labour will be SORRY for introducing this policy.
    It shows you how many brains Andrew Little has when he says people dont make false claims.
    Would you have this person making any decisions with regards to your everyday life.
    Hes lightweight and a evil little communist to boot.
    His mum must be proud.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. adze (1,942 comments) says:

    What bothers me most is that some otherwise intelligent people actually think the policy is a good idea. I’m not even sure if they care about unintended consequences.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. lastmanstanding (1,233 comments) says:

    I accuse Andrew Little of being a pedophile and he is therefore guilty until he can prove himself innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    The problem as with all these agenda’s is if Labour wions an election, ratifies this presumption of guilt and then is taken out of govt by their National coalition partner, National will not rescind the law. It will become enshrined in perpertuity.

    Which leads us to believe National is simply letting Labour look like Dr Evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. goldnkiwi (1,114 comments) says:

    From what I read there will still be the ‘right to silence’, currently I believe a judge instructs a jury to not view that as a sign of guilt. I assume that juries will be allowed to draw their own conclusion about the charged person choosing not to speak in their own defence and allowing themselves to be cross examined.

    Juries quite probably do anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. adze (1,942 comments) says:

    Wow wiki, even wacky policies made by other parties are now National’s fault. That’s some pretty impressive logic gymnastics right there.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. lastmanstanding (1,233 comments) says:

    Just applying Labour Party policy nothing more nothing less. You know if enacted for rape it will be by precedence extended to all other crimes.

    Why not. Those who support this will find the reasons to do so. Sorry much easier than the current pesky matter of having to have the Police investigate and lay charges and then go to all the trouble of having to find evidence to convict.

    Lets just declare all men are rapists. That’s what Jan Logie et al would love to do if they were able.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Barnsley Bill (982 comments) says:

    Darren Hughes.
    Labour lost the right to ever talk about this when they helped him flee.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ashishnaicker (21 comments) says:

    How many example of false accusations does Andrew ‘Chicken’ Little need? *facepalm* *facepalm* #nzpol #stupidity

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. freethinker (685 comments) says:

    A brilliant policy, just think who can be jailed – Helen Clark and virtually her whole cabinet, Winston Peters,Bill Wilson the list is endless and look at the unexpected benefits – more Jail building more Warders, oh joy oh joy we could even have a TV series accuse a Poly or Beaurecrat, wow most of EQC and insurance staff in Jail. Now perhaps Labour will add mandatory capital punishment!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. NK (1,102 comments) says:

    Here’s the obvious Labour Party strategy.

    Give speech apologising for being a man.

    Propose policy targeting all men as rapists.

    Get that lady who was allegedly attacked by the Malaysian diplomat to go on TV and blame our “rape culture” (i.e. backs up speech and policy).

    Targeted audience: Feminazis.

    Targeted audience: oh, about 2,000 potential votes.

    Expected votes won: about 600 (i.e. 30% of 2,000).

    Expected lost votes: about 60,000 (i.e. Waitakere men).

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Ginga Hughes, ginga Hughes, ginga Hughes.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. metcalph (1,396 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt: The right of silence has not been scrapped. What is proposed to be changed is the direction (in sex abuse cases) that a jury should not assume anything from the Defendant’s exercise of his right to silence. This is general practice in the UK and passes muster by the European Court of Human Rights.

    Personally I think that if the defendant has answered the police questions then his failure to testify in court should not be held against him.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dog_eat_dog (757 comments) says:

    I’m ok with it if electoral law breaches are prosecuted the same way. Your move, Andrew.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. jackinabox (737 comments) says:

    “I accuse Andrew Little of being a pedophile and he is therefore guilty until he can prove himself innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.”

    How can you spell it wrong when the comment box has got spell correct?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Reboot (94 comments) says:

    So someone could lay a rape complaint against Andrew Little and he would have to prove his innocence, and if he claims it’s a false complaint we could remind him that there’s no propensity to lay false complaints.

    Let’s also not forget that DPF is the National Party’s official spinster and has selectively omitted to post what National is also proposing:

    Both major parties claim the current system is not upholding justice for victims, and are looking at changes that would effectively make it easier for prosecutors to obtain convictions.

    National wants to explore allowing a judge or jury to see an accused’s refusal to give evidence in a negative light, while Labour wants to shift the burden of proof of consent from the alleged victim to the accused.

    Be interested to see what ACT has to say on the matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rowan (1,946 comments) says:

    Labour are ensuring that they don’t have a hope in hell of winning the election with each new policy thought up by them (and the greens). This goes against the BORA and is completely ridiculous, the burden of proof has and always will rest with the prosecution!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Liam Hehir (116 comments) says:

    But scrapping the right to silence is completely kosher and something we should be happy see coming from someone wanting to hold a ministerial warrant, right?

    Without commenting on the specific proposals, it’s worth pointing out that they’re not quite of the same magnitude.

    For example, the right of the accused to refuse to answer questions is a common law right that’s been in existence for centuries. However, the common law has always allowed inferences to be drawn from silence in some circumstances. That’s not to say the right should be hastily dispensed with or truncated – but allowing limited inferences always has been and will be tolerable to justice.

    The presumption of innocence, however, is much more important and fundamental. Per Lord Sankey, it is the “Golden Thread” of the law:

    Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt … If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner… the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Rowan (1,946 comments) says:

    Would Andrew Little make a better MOJ than the tax lawyer, previously I would have said he couldn’t possibly be any worse! but then he comes out with wacko ideas like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. unaha-closp (1,133 comments) says:

    I see you’ve chosen to remain silent on the right to silence, good luck with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Yvette (2,736 comments) says:

    If you were confronted with a country proposing changes to rape law, to remove the presumption of innocence and place the onus of proof onto the defence in rape cases, contravening –
    the country’s own Bill of Rights Act 1990
    25 [c] the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law
    as well as the
    UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Article 11.
    (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence,
    would you consider returning one of your citizens to face the law of that country, which could change before the trial takes place?

    Especially after the alleged victim had appeared on national television to enhance her own position, and delivering a political “essay” mixing national anti-male motivation with the situation of your citizen, before any trial?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Fisiani (980 comments) says:

    This policy of guilty till proven innocent will destroy lives and careers of completely innocent men and many in divorce as the same rules apply even within marriage. People have been claiming that this is the most extreme potential government in history. That is not a fanciful claim. They need to be utterly crushed.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Has P.G. expressed his unconditional support for the alleged victim?

    I believe the Malaysian diplomat was a saint, who became corrupted by NZ’s rape culture, a country where all males are potential rapists, according to Mother Teresa of Dunedin.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Peter (1,653 comments) says:

    My wife was a long-time Labour voter. She thinks the current positioning regarding men is pathetic, and loathes Cunliffe. I’m not sure targeting the activist sisterhood is going to work out, numbers wise.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (9,605 comments) says:

    :shock: It simply defies belief that the best people they have are such lunatics.

    If Labour somehow wins the election, someone needs to shag a high profile Labour MP, then cry rape and get them locked up.

    Nothing else is going to get through to them. This will ruin innocent people.

    I guess Big Brother can do no wrong, Big Brother sees all, Big Brother is your friend…

    [DPF: Bags not]

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    I have a friend in his mid seventies who has been a long term Labour voter. He is not sure who he will vote for due to Cunliffe’s comments and this policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,734 comments) says:

    What is unclear is the proof that this is now official Labour Party policy. Has the Labour caucus approved it?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. berend (1,671 comments) says:

    DPF, here’s news: there are actually two parties trying to make a fundamental change to rape laws, any idea who that other party is? You don’t have the right to remain silent on this DPF!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Psycho Milt (2,347 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt: The right of silence has not been scrapped.

    Nor does Labour’s policy scrap the presumption of innocence. They’re both still pretty dubious policies.

    Without commenting on the specific proposals, it’s worth pointing out that they’re not quite of the same magnitude.

    Actually, they are: in the case of the National policy, if a defendant exercises his right to silence, the jury will be welcome to regard it as evidence of his guilt; in the case of the Labour policy, if a defendant claims the sex was consensual, the jury will be welcome to disregard that claim (in the absence of proof to back the claim up). In either case, the defendant’s rights take a beating.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pita (372 comments) says:

    The creation of a “Facebook” page on Labours presumption of guilt would initiate a rapid backtrack. A few “likes” and the peer group pressure that they initiate would send Andrew Little into a tailspin.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Unity (367 comments) says:

    Just imagine how easy it will now be for a vindictive person to accuse a boyfriend who, say, finished the relationship, to accuse him of rape to get back at him!!? It doesn’t bear thinking about and could easily happen. Probably does even now.

    What will Labour come up with next? We would need the Inquisatorial system even more – which is a system interested in getting at the truth – did the person do it or not(?). Not like our current adversarial system which all too often is a contest between lawyers to see who is the cleverest.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ashishnaicker (21 comments) says:

    https://www.facebook.com/fundsexchangeforcunliffe

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Liam Hehir (116 comments) says:

    Actually, they are

    I’m sorry about this, but they’re really not. The presumption of innocence is fundamental to the common law. The proscribing of adverse inferences is not – and is presently allowed in other common law countries – with appropriate restraints in the form of judge’s directions. Nobody will be confronted with the terrible dilemma of accusing oneself or committing perjury. It is therefore a matter of prudential judgment (which is not the same thing as saying it’s neccessarily a good idea).

    in the case of the Labour policy, if a defendant claims the sex was consensual, the jury will be welcome to disregard that claim (in the absence of proof to back the claim up).

    I’m not sure you’ve got this right either. The jury currently has the power to do that – there is nothing in the law that says a jury must accept a mere denial. What is supposedly being discussed is that the instance of coitus having been established, the defendant will bear the burden of (somehow) showing the fact of consent. In other words, it will be the duty of the prisoner to prove that the prosecutor is wrong.

    Do you deny that? If not, I’m not sure why we are duty-bound to accept tha bald statement that this “won’t affect the presumption of innocence” is correct just because Andrew Little says it won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Nigel Kearney (904 comments) says:

    The right of silence has not been scrapped.

    The right to silence is overrated. But it’s already much worse than that. Under current law the police can stop you, arrest you, and you can be convicted of a crime without the slightest grounds to believe you have done anything wrong other than your refusal to provide evidence of your own innocence. This happens many times a year all over the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Psycho Milt (2,347 comments) says:

    What is supposedly being discussed is that the instance of coitus having been established, the defendant will bear the burden of (somehow) showing the fact of consent.

    The emphasis being on “supposedly.” It seems to me entirely reasonably for a court to expect a defendant claiming sex was consensual to be able to outline a set of reasons that led him to conclude consent was offered, and that a bald declaration that consent was offered doesn’t suffice. Whether Labour’s policy goes further than that and imposes an actual burden of proof on the defendant isn’t clear at this point, and isn’t likely to be before the election either, because the policy actually is to:

    “…allow the Law Commission to complete its review on alternative trial mechanisms, including the establishment of a specialist sexual violence court and consider reforms that provide real justice to survivors while protecting the right to be presumed innocent, including: cross examination rules, alternative trial processes, establishment of sexual violence support, specialist training including on the dynamics of violence, support services during justice processes, and changes to the definition of consent.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Rex Widerstrom (5,307 comments) says:

    As Pycho Milt points out:

    … in the case of the National policy, if a defendant exercises his right to silence, the jury will be welcome to regard it as evidence of his guilt

    This is a de facto loss of the right to silence.

    To claim that it is not is akin to claiming I have the right to rob my local dairy. Of course there’s nothing to stop me doing it, but if I opt to do so I’m going to create an enormous amount of trouble for myself, and probably end up in jail.

    Wake up. Both parties, under successive Justice Ministers, are hell bent on eroding our rights at the very time we most need them: when the might of the state, in the form of the police and Crown prosecutors, is arrayed against us.

    It’s perfectly okay to vote National for a raft of other reasons while still letting them know it’s unconscionable to keep on dismantling centuries of carefully considered jurisprudence, you know. And that’s precisely the route I’d recommend, because I know only too well that false accusations do get made, and your complacent belief that that is something that only happens to other people lasts until precisely the moment the police knock your children aside as they charge through your front door.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Little is just another example of slime that festoons the corridors of left-wing politics. We are currently seeing a left-wing pawn trying to upset McCully over her accusations against a foreigner. If this is the standard of union/lesbian behaviour we can expect from a Labour-led government, God help us.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. NK (1,102 comments) says:

    Yes, I think Rex has a point. Further to this, I was aghast at the changes to the law surrounding child abuse where witnesses were obliged to report it to police, and if they didn’t they too could be charged.

    DPF has a post at the top of this page (currently) headed “The Slippery Slope is Real”.

    It sure is.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    Rex: good post…You may have stated your view on this before, but can I assume that like ACT, you were opposed to removing the centuries old partial defence of provocation? I believe that was one of the very worst things this government has done…all based on a FAILED attempt to invoke the defence by Weatherston…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Julian (168 comments) says:

    Is the Governor General able to veto legislation (like this) that is clearly bonkers?

    For example, a party presumably couldn’t make itself the government in perpetuity.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. burt (7,948 comments) says:

    Julian

    The Governor General has wide ranging powers to veto bad legislation – but never once has in the history of NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    Julian: Burt is correct…and it is a standard question in Public Law at Law Schools: “Could a Governor General refuse assent to a law allowing torture?” The accepted answer is “Yes”, but as Burt notes, it has never happened.

    Just as an aside, one of my many amusing memories from my time in Parliament was when Labour said they would petition the GG not to assent to the law allowing employers to hire people for 90 day trial periods… Clearly Sir Anand didn’t find that particular legislation so odious he needed to dust off his reserve powers…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Julian (168 comments) says:

    Thanks burt. Never say never!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. backster (2,106 comments) says:

    The right to silence should go…It is based on a tradition when country yokels had to defend themselves and faced capital punishment for minor offences. Now offenders get gold plated legal aid and it becomes an escape tactic.
    Especially for sex cases”Discovery” should also go, this is a relatively recent imposition on the Prosecution which makes available to the Defence all the complainant’s evidence and with our delayed Justice system allows the Defence months somtimes years to come up with anything that may throw doubt on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Julian (168 comments) says:

    Thanks David.

    I presume torture because it’s a breach of a number of international agreements, so one would assume it might apply to this which ‘violates the presumption of innocence affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act (not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ICCPR, and every other major human rights instrument)’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. David Garrett (6,661 comments) says:

    backster: I agree that the right to silence – more accurately the right not to have your silence commented on, and adverse inferences taken from it – should go…I am always rather surprised at the number of lawyers who DONT agree with me on this, but DO think a criminal’s prior history should be available to juries…I don’t think there is a human alive who could manage to disregard prior criminal history when considering a new charge…particularly if, as will very often be the case, the new charge is the same charge the accused has been convicted on many times before…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    The slippery slope is real because conspiracy agenda’s exist

    Otherwise, govts would be focused on planning for people, communities and the economy instead of corporations

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “Wow wiki, even wacky policies made by other parties are now National’s fault. That’s some pretty impressive logic gymnastics right there.”

    History agrees with me and so I see do others.

    In fact, name a major law an opposition govt has taken away from the previous govt.

    And how soon you forget how J Key held H Clarks hand over the anti-smacking law!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Fisiani (980 comments) says:

    Labour is, as Damien O’Connor once said ‘Just a gaggle of gays and unionists’. They exist primarily to foster the self interest of gays and unionists. They used to be a party of the working class but now they regard the working class as electoral fodder to be exploited and harvested every three years. The Greens are fundamentalist Marxists with Taliban concepts that want to take us back to the Stone Age. This is the most important election in our lifetimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Dexter (279 comments) says:

    Most literature puts the percentage of false rape complaints at around 8%.

    A New Zealand study; puts the total number closer to 12%.

    “In the current study, just over a third of cases were classified by the police as ‘no offence’, including 8 percent of cases where the victim was charged or warned for making a false complaint and 4 percent of cases where the victim was suspected of making a false complaint.17 ”

    Clearly Andrew Little didn’t bother doing a bit of research first.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Yvette (2,736 comments) says:

    BREAKING – New Zealand ‘s HELEN CLARK’s ambitions for top UN position may be in jeopardy after her own Labour Party, campaigning in the country’s up-coming Government Election, September 20, moves to reverse UN’s UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Article 11.
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/07/little_on_the_presumption_of_innocence.html/comment-page-1#comment-1358236

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. burt (7,948 comments) says:

    Yvette

    It’s different when Labour do it !

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. ashishnaicker (21 comments) says:

    Yvette

    Great statement. I’m just going to take a snapshot of it and tweet it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Engineer (67 comments) says:

    What do you expect from a party full of ass bandits, drag queens, and a various assortment of other types of weirdos?

    The old left, concerned simply with social justice and a fair wage for a fair days work is gone. The left is now full of crackpots, greenies, cannabis smoking dreadlocked homosexuals, and technology hating troglodytes

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. OneTrack (2,754 comments) says:

    Fisiani – “This is the most important election in our lifetimes.”

    Too true – it is. And even after all the issues you correctly listed, it is still going to be a tight election. Which the country itself might lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Fentex (899 comments) says:

    I sometimes wonder if anyone in Labour can hear themselves speak for the shear political stupidity of, let alone logical, moral or ethical problems with, what they’re saying sometimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Unity (367 comments) says:

    My thoughts also, Fentex. I sometimes wonder if they live on the same planet as the rest of us. Perhaps they don’t have enough to do and have to dream up ever more fanciful policies to feel relevant within themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I agree with Rex’s 1.38pm comment and applaud it. The way that the inferences rule is applied in the UK has resulted in an effective loss of the right to silence, even though it techically still exists.

    The problem with removing the right to silence, of course, is that it does in fact mean that the suspect will often be assisting the investigating authorities with their own prosecution. Some people have no issue with that. I do. I don’t think that a suspect should be required to inform on themselves to the authorities under pain of prosecution for not saying anything (which will have to be implemented if you ae to truly take away the right to silence). For tha reason I think that s27 of the SFO Act is odious.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Fisiani (980 comments) says:

    Great reaction when doorknocking in Red areas.
    “What did you think of David Cunliffe apologising for being a man?”
    “Wanker!!”
    What do you think of Labour’s plan to make sex assumed to be rape unless you can prove she wanted it?
    ” No way!”
    “Official Labour policy if they win the election.”
    ” No way I’m voting for that”
    “John Key’s not ashamed to be a man.”
    “He’s OK.”
    Vote for a real man, Vote National.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Rex Widerstrom (5,307 comments) says:

    @David Garrett

    Sorry, out in the desert again, so replies can lag.

    Yes, I most certainly oppose any watering down of the defences counsel can put before a judge. I suspect I diverge from Act in not supporting any dimunition of the powers of the judiciary when pronouncing sentence, however (e.g. minimum sentences).

    I once represented a murderer.

    His wife had treated him absolutely horribly over many, many years. Berated and belittled him publicly at every opportunity, was physically abusive, deliberately wasted all his money… basically he was an archetypical battered woman, only he was male.

    One night they were getting ready for bed and she was regaling him with how she’d had sex, yet again, with one of his “friends” and how they were so much better at it than him. He reached under the bed, pulled out his rifle, calmly shot her in the back of the head, put the rifle away, called the police and waited to be arrested.

    He was the meekest person you could hope to meet. Did his time without even the slightest infraction, took it calmly when the Parole Board wouldn’t let him transfer states to be nearer his family (I got that overturned for him). I did it pro bono and he got me an engraved writing set and made me a tissue box cover.

    I’d want him to be able to be treated differently than, say Ivan Milat. Minimum sentencing limits just how differently they can be treated. It led to an injustice in his case and leads to even greater injustices when less serious crimes are before a judge.

    And since we’re on the subject of slippery slopes, the reducto ad absurdum of minimum sentencing is we have criminals line up at an “AJM”, input their offence designation, and get handed the prescribed sentence by a machine.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. freemark (497 comments) says:

    In the pursuit of balanced perspectives on this I have been having a browse over at the Internet’s loveliest Blog.. and as the LiPrenter is frightened of differing POVs I will share some perspectives here (knowing as we do that no Standardistas would lower themselves to visit this sewer, ever, lol)
    The Sociology Lecturer’s influence is strong over there, despite all evidence that it is just failed theory, but what really gets me is this critique of every comment, situation, event..ever, anywhere – and the ignorance of current or past reality. To wit, by karol (Jan Logie, apparently??)
    “And nothing in the girls, or anyone’s behaviour, excuses manipulative, self-serving destructive and abusive behaviour by others – and especially when it’s by those with most social, political and/or economic power in any situation.” Does anybody here see any over reaching disparity within r/ships (or work places) of this huge power imbalance? FFS, I don’t..I’m a tall heavy guy, no slouch intellectually, highly experienced in a variety of roles & industries, and most women I know are not only great mums but great executives with great social networks & bank balances. Good on them, well done.
    Someone called redlogix made a great comment, I’m sure (& hope) more than a few of you can relate to this (Dime?) http://thestandard.org.nz/repost-not-the-war-on-men-youre-looking-for/#comment-847526 – the denial of this reality, and the apparent premise that this is some kind of twisted result of patriarchal power is astonishing..and highly indicative of the disassociation from real life of the sociofemmenazi mindset.
    No doubt I will be painted as the worst kind of racist whatever (by some) by posting these links, but some people need their cosy little “nasty white man” theories blown to pieces..
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10418035
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6502905/Turangi-child-rapists-mum-admits-failure
    Do we allow these people to totally destroy our people & country? Not while I have daughters to nurture, nourish & send out to the world as decent citizens..actually not ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. freemark (497 comments) says:

    Edit to my comment above..by “these people” I mean the Socialists, not the people they are intent on repressing & ultimately destroying in their own pursuit of power & influence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. adze (1,942 comments) says:

    @wiki

    In fact, name a major law an opposition govt has taken away from the previous govt.

    I suspect you’re going to set an unreasonably high standard for “major law” but I’ll play:

    - Removal of ACC as sole workplace insurance provider (1998) and its subsequent reinstatement (2000)

    - Disenfranchisement of unions in Employment Contracts Act (1991) and subsequent reinstatement (2000)

    - Electoral Finance Act (2007) and its subsequent repeal (2009)

    These were all highly significant changes in legislation. There are many smaller examples of course (and I am not a lawyer). But the fact that National and Labour ostensibly share part of their ideology in the centre of the political spectrum, it’s expected that major changes will be relatively rare – but none of that is “National’s fault” alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. boonman (3 comments) says:

    Does your presumption of innocence theory extend to those people trying to bring up a family while on a benefit of some kind… you know… like John Key’s mum or Paula Bennett back before she was an MP.
    In your and your like’s eyes (Blubber Oil) they seem to be “guilty” of doing drugs, getting preggers for the cash, regularly defrauding the government, spending their money on lotto, booze and fags rather than giving their kids a school lunch, etc, etc, etc.
    So lets see some tune changing there please if you’re going to go down this route.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.