If National wins ...

[dobby41]

The problem, Bjauk, is that some people don't want to have a conversation and want to paint people as having a hard and fast view.
As you show Poto feels that what we have isn't right and describes an approach to change that - in broad terms - why some seem to think that is policy now is beyond me.

[Baa_Baa]

The problem, Bjauk, is that some people don't want to have a conversation and want to paint people as having a hard and fast view.

Well put, all debate begins with the assumption of the affirmative versus the negative, right versus wrong, black versus white, whereas it is actually about finding a place between the lighter and darker shades of grey.

Attachment 8826

We see it on forums frequently, passionate, polarised even extreme views, defended vigorously and repeated incessantly, rarely willing to agree that the debate is really just about the lighter or darker shade of grey.

[BlackPeter]

Not all rapists are men and not all victims are women.

Correct. I didn't intended to imply anything else, please replace mentally all occurrences of "men" or "women" in my post with "men and women".
Still - it will significantly increase the likelihood of innocent men sitting behind bars, this is just applied statistics.

Has Poto actually proposed that the burden switch to a presumption of guilt?

Well, yes - she did.

I must however admit that I didn't realise at the time of writing my last post that this is not just Poto's ramblings, but already an official Labour proposal, announced as well from Little himself. Quite sad picture that a justice spokesperson (both Poto and Andrew are justice spokes persons for Labour) is not competent to speak on law ... Labour's talent pool seems to be incredibly thin.

Just referring to this Herald article:

The Labour Party's plan to reform the criminal justice system would mean that the accused in a rape case would have to prove consent to be found innocent -- a change it acknowledges as a monumental shift.

...

The policy would mean that in a rape case, if the Crown proved a sexual encounter and the identity of the defendant, it would be rape unless the defendant could prove it was consensual.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11289979

However - I realise that for some people on this thread is it much more important to gang up on individual posters who's views they might not like. Hope they enjoy their life in the grey zone ...

[Bjauck]

Well, yes - she did.

I accept others may have interpreted her suggested reforms as a proposal for a presumption of guilt in rape cases, even though I have not seen anywhere where she specifically states it. I agree that it would be a severe erosion of justice to completely shift a presumption of guilt onto the accused.

I must however admit that I didn't realise at the time of writing my last post that this is not just Poto's ramblings, but already an official Labour proposal, announced as well from Little himself.

An instance where the burden of proof can fall to the defendant, who otherwise enjoys the presumption of innocence, occurs where the defendant raises a defence of insanity to a charge, where other elements of the charge have already been proved by the Prosecution. So I think it is more than just an exercise in sophistry to support the retention of the presumption of innocence for the accused, whilst also supporting the shifting the burden of proof to the accused if a particular defence is raised after the prosecution have proved certain facts. However I am not a legal expert. I think that The misuse of drugs legislation also shifts the burden of proof to the accused in certain situations.

So I think suggesting the possibility of law reform in relation to the burden of proof when raising a defence of consent to a rape charge (where other facts have been proved by the prosecution) is well within the ambit of a politician's role although I doubt it would be accepted by the legal profession or a professional review.

Anyway it is part of the job of politicians to stimulate debate over law reform.

Quite sad picture that a justice spokesperson (both Poto and Andrew are justice spokes persons for Labour) is not competent to speak on law ... Labour's talent pool seems to be incredibly thin.

I don't disagree with you on that point Although I guess a key to being a "good" politician is to know when to consult with real experts in the area for which you have responsibility...

[elZorro]

Although I guess a key to being a "good" politician is to know when to consult with real experts in the area for which you have responsibility...

Not something Steven Joyce, Nats campaign manager 2005, 2008, seems to be too good at. Even though he owned a big radio network at one stage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...copyright-case

Why he thought paying $4802 for the rights to a close copy of the Eminem song, when its normal use fee would have been at least $750,000 - if they were allowed to use it - was "pretty legal", is beyond me. Jo de Joux was the campaign manager that year. And they'd done it before, in 2008 under Joyce, with a Coldplay track.

They obtained some non-lawyer advice, and went ahead. If National lose this case, they'll try to get the costs back from the industry advisors, or more likely their insurers. But they'll have to front a big fine first, so I'm guessing any National Party donations this year, might be getting used partly on fixing up the big mistake in 2014. That's gotta hurt.

[fungus pudding]

Not something Steven Joyce, Nats campaign manager 2005, 2008, seems to be too good at. Even though he owned a big radio network at one stage.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...copyright-case

Why he thought paying $4802 for the rights to a close copy of the Eminem song, when its normal use fee would have been at least $750,000 - if they were allowed to use it - was "pretty legal", is beyond me. Jo de Joux was the campaign manager that year. And they'd done it before, in 2008 under Joyce, with a Coldplay track.

They obtained some non-lawyer advice, and went ahead. If National lose this case, they'll try to get the costs back from the industry advisors, or more likely their insurers. But they'll have to front a big fine first, so I'm guessing any National Party donations this year, might be getting used partly on fixing up the big mistake in 2014. That's gotta hurt.

Just give them a little bit more then this year eZ. If all their other supporters do likewise any penalty will be easily covered. And you can relax. $750,000 would be too silly to be true.

[craic]

It's only a song that most voters probably would not have recognised in the context of the election. But they got elected and that was their aim and a dollar here and a dollar there will cure this pimple. Now, as to Labour, they are still running around looking for any sort of music that might drown out the awful noise their people are making as the election gets closer. At least, after the election, they can head back to their caves to the tune of The Dead March, which, I believe, is long free of any rights.

[dobby41]

It's only a song that most voters probably would not have recognised in the context of the election. But they got elected and that was their aim and a dollar here and a dollar there will cure this pimple.

The means justify the ends I gather.
National Modis Operandi.

[westerly]

I must however admit that I didn't realise at the time of writing my last post that this is not just Poto's ramblings, but already an official Labour proposal, announced as well from Little himself. Quite sad picture that a justice spokesperson (both Poto and Andrew are justice spokes persons for Labour) is not competent to speak on law ... Labour's talent pool seems to be incredibly thin.

Just referring to this Herald article:



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11289979

However - I realise that for some people on this thread is it much more important to gang up on individual posters who's views they might not like. Hope they enjoy their life in the grey zone ...

Andrew Little is a qualified lawyer although no longer Justice spokesman.
That role is Jacinda Ardean's. Williams is associate Justice spokesman on sexual and domestic violence.

Sorry you think you are being ganged up on but when you use emotive language like "vicious and partisan, sick minds, " and so forth, and are obviously partisan your self you will attract replies from those who may differ in their views.

westerly

[elZorro]

The means justify the ends I gather.
National Modis Operandi.

More from the court case: the hearing continues today. After the first two weeks of airing the ad, the important two weeks, when it was played on air 180 times, the Nats pulled the ad and released it again with a track that was original, for that they paid two composers $18,000.

They paid a licence fee to an Australian outfit to use the Cohen track, but unfortunately the fee doesn't cover the risk for being sued by any other party who feels their copyright has been infringed. The Nats can afford a decent penalty being awarded, so they are in court. It seems that other outfits have used the Cohen copy track, probably not so publicly, and they've gotten away with it.

So in a bid to gain instant recognition of their TV advert, the Nats have made a classic mistake and taken a couple of shortcuts they are known for. Paying a very small amount for a close copy of the track, and going ahead because they didn't want to pay for a lawyer either.

It's just like a lot of their policies, which have an impression of being made up on the fly.