Thursday, May 03, 2007

Its all the court's fault

Helen Clark has said that if the courts had defined what reasonable force was, the smacking bill would not have been needed.

So who is supposed to make clear law here? It's not the judiciary, its the executive for the legislature to pass. The judiciary interprets law. It is not the judiciary's job to define law.

What she should have said that if Parliament defined reasonable force, the courts wouldn't have to. But Helen Clark didn't want to do that. She didn't know how to. Gee, Imagine if Sian Elias was to criticise the executive like Clark criticises the judiciary, she`d be in trouble.


dad4justice said...

Great more grey area bad law .The law is no longer a profession ,it is a business and it needs a radical rethink, however Klark is above the law, as she is in the utopian supreme leader business ! The courts are liarbour shrill puppets .

Anonymous said...

She said it to muddy the waters.
Just as she said it was illegal to smack kids under SEC 59.
When is a lie a lie?

When someone says an untruth that they know is one or when they keep quiet when they could put it right.
And especially when they are "The most reported person in the land".

I have said it and will say it again. Helen Clark and Sue Bradford and their supporters on the anti smacking campaign have lied by ommission and commission again and again in pursuing their ends on this one.
Goebbels would have been proud of them.

That's why I won't vote for the Greens or Labour nor give monies to Barnados, Plunket or Save the Children.

Give monies or votes to Liars?
Get Real.

And if I could vote out Cindy kiro I would in an instant.