tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post2893717317589692052..comments2023-10-07T22:37:49.244+13:00Comments on The Hand Mirror: What about teh menz?katyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15742280289613450293noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-74070207704282920952009-01-13T11:10:00.000+13:002009-01-13T11:10:00.000+13:00Out of your house for 72 hours, see you in court.O...<I>Out of your house for 72 hours, see you in court.</I><BR/><BR/>Or not; the bill proposed by the government has no effective power of review, and no way of challenging the police's decisions. There is redress when it is used in bad faith, but that is a high barrier to meet, and as we have seen from John Dewar, the police are more than happy to cover for their own.Idiot/Savanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993069909613708957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-62349463155573875562009-01-12T23:40:00.000+13:002009-01-12T23:40:00.000+13:00With a highly ethical police force, I wouldn't hav...<I>With a highly ethical police force, I wouldn't have any objection to the law in practice.</I><BR/><BR/>Is there any law that wouldn't work perfectly with a highly ethical police force? Unfortunately the nature of policing makes such a contingency unlikely at best. If we are really to put our faith in the police, we wouldn't need laws at all, we'd just trust them to do the right thing.<BR/><BR/>Even if one is inclined to give the police the maximum benefit of the doubt the inescapable fact is that their role is to enact the law, not use their own discretion.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to carp on this point but it gets right to the heart of the matter to me. As I/S rightly says, we can't trust the police with the powers they do have, and the idea that giving them more power will correct their behaviour is startlingly naive.<BR/><BR/>We have no guarantee that the police will use this power only to evict people who are accused of abusing their partners. I see nothing to prevent them from using it on anybody they want to harass. Anti free-trade protesters, immigrants, homosexuals, you name it. Out of your house for 72 hours, see you in court.<BR/><BR/>As I said earlier, usually this blog has a commendably sceptical view of the police's goodwill. Unfortunately there seems to be a rather gaping blindspot when the police are supposedly acting on behalf of an abused woman.DPF:TLDRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06372937855256319716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-54422908208065705822009-01-12T18:12:00.000+13:002009-01-12T18:12:00.000+13:00Well, the issue of violence and safety I is urgent...Well, the issue of violence and safety I is urgent enough I think that this law deserves a good chance to work and demonstrate whether it allows the police to help out when they previously couldn't. With a highly ethical police force, I wouldn't have any objection to the law in practice.<BR/><BR/>That said, I have to support I/S in principle. Any police force that rapes, spies, harasses, and beats the populace as frequently and blatantly as ours does is not ready for this type of power. We really need some comprehensive and truly independent oversight for the police that can hold them accountable.Arihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10508763710629695750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-60121438899996067862009-01-12T09:17:00.000+13:002009-01-12T09:17:00.000+13:00Readers may be interested in Anita's continuation ...Readers may be interested in <A HREF="http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2009/01/domestic-violence-enhancing-safety-bill/" REL="nofollow">Anita's continuation of this discussion over at Kiwipolitico</A> too.Juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08977150346842277994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-33912856913767730412009-01-11T11:12:00.000+13:002009-01-11T11:12:00.000+13:00Okay, so if the offender isn't being jailed, what ...Okay, so if the offender isn't being jailed, what keeps them out of the home for 72 hours (or how ever long is decided)? I mean, the problem with protection orders right now is not that they're not being handed out, but that they're almost impossible to enforce.<BR/><BR/>I don't see this deterring the worst offenders, the most violent. I do see the potential for abuse. That's why the trade-off isn't worth it for me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-71647853374903165032009-01-10T22:08:00.000+13:002009-01-10T22:08:00.000+13:00To put it more bluntly, would you have handed Clin...<I>To put it more bluntly, would you have handed Clint Rickards this power?</I><BR/><BR/>Hell no.<BR/><BR/>And while not all police officers are Clint Rickards, the potential for abuse is precisely why there must be proper judicial oversight.Idiot/Savanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993069909613708957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-74718027047631130542009-01-10T17:39:00.000+13:002009-01-10T17:39:00.000+13:00Muerk, whenever due process is removed, we're alwa...Muerk, whenever due process is removed, we're always told it's in order to protect somebody. While I can accept that you think that practical protection is more important than the rights of alleged criminals, we really need to ask whether this dichotomy is actually applicable. That is, does this removal of rights actually protect people?<BR/><BR/>I'm reminded of John Howard's massive intervention of the self government of indigenous Australian communities. Whenever somebody criticised the lack of due process, they were always told that the most important thing was to protect children from abuse.<BR/><BR/>I find it quite sad that the police are presumed to be worthy of trust and entitled to the benefit of the doubt when acting against accused abusers, but not when they are the accused abusers. To put it more bluntly, would you have handed Clint Rickards this power?DPF:TLDRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06372937855256319716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-20769714841360719762009-01-09T23:37:00.000+13:002009-01-09T23:37:00.000+13:00I/S has suggested that police have all the powers ...<I>I/S has suggested that police have all the powers they already need, in the power of arrest.</I><BR/><BR/>And more importantly, the power to prosecute offenders. Which ought to be what they're aiming at, right?<BR/><BR/>Current practice apparently is that they arrest people and then do not charge them. That is a gross abuse of process, and one for which individual police officers should be held responsible (the chances of that being, oh, about as high as the chances of their implementing the rcommendations of the Bazeley report into police misconduct).<BR/><BR/>As for the policy framework, I can see why a "cooling off" period is desirable and likely to be effective, and limiting people's movements is less of an infringement of liberty than sticking people in a cell. But both the duration and process in this bill suck. At least if you are in a cell you can challenge your detention. But if a police officer issues one of these orders you can do... nothing. There is no judicial oversight, no test of the evidence, no check on the police. The only mechanism is a High Court judicial review, beyond the financial means of almost everybody, and too slow to do any good.<BR/><BR/>I've seen one suggestion for a different process which would provide a cooling off period with proper judicial oversight, which I think I'll be pushing as an amendment at Select Committee - but I'll let the person responsible post it on their own blog rather than stealing their thunder her. But it clearly can be done properly, with a little thought. Which raises the obvious question: why didn't they?Idiot/Savanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993069909613708957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-73231083103109978942009-01-09T22:04:00.000+13:002009-01-09T22:04:00.000+13:00Oh, and "enough powers"... not really. The plod ar...Oh, and "enough powers"... not really. The plod are often reluctant to arrest because people get out of that quite fast and they don't have a lot of accommodation available. So they tend to priorities... violent drug addicts first sort of thing.<BR/><BR/>MozAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-57497613394248480362009-01-09T22:00:00.000+13:002009-01-09T22:00:00.000+13:00With the caveats that you're talking about it make...With the caveats that you're talking about it makes a lot more sense. As stated it's quite problematic - there's not even a requirement to make sure the the supposed offender is dressed, let alone that they have what they need to survive for five days. While I'm sure that the p*lice would always be reasonable and never overstep the boundaries, let alone make incorrect assumptions, I'd still rather have some formal safeguards. I'd hate to see someone kicked out then promptly arrested for vagrancy...<BR/><BR/>Even the stats you give suggest that 20% or so of cases could be the woman getting the boot, but my rough reading of the stats here doesn't show that proportion of arrests, let alone convictions. <BR/><BR/>Muerk, "practical protection" is more often the result of due process than the contrary, at least when it comes to restraining the PTB. Blue meanie notwithstanding, people who spend a lot of time associating with criminals generally develop a skewed view of humanity. Like you, they assume that women are always victims and need to be protected, regardless of the actual situation. Talk to the local women's shelter about their problems with violent women and the protocols they have as a result...<BR/><BR/><BR/>Kicking the kids out is actually something I think needs to be regarded much more seriously. Right now way too much "family law" results in kids losing their home for the convenience of their parents, and that sucks. I've read recently of a few cases where the parents have agreed that the kids stay put when the couple break up, and the shared custody involves the parents shuttling between the kids home and whatever other accommodation the parents have. That makes much sense to me, at least in more amicable breakups. Even in tense ones, listening to the kids and letting them decide if they can is a much better idea than leaving them to pick up the bits after all the decisions have been made.<BR/><BR/>mozAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-67134159773645876172009-01-09T21:20:00.000+13:002009-01-09T21:20:00.000+13:00The police already have enough power is these situ...The police already have enough power is these situations. IMO this legislation is window dressing and as such will achieve little very good and will allow for further injustice and abuse of power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-47667529826875803782009-01-09T19:11:00.000+13:002009-01-09T19:11:00.000+13:00Well said, I agree. Whilst I see I/S point, I thin...Well said, I agree. Whilst I see I/S point, I think it's outweighed by women and children (and the odd guy) having a safe home. I think practical protection is more important than due process. <BR/><BR/>Why should kids have to pack up and leave their homes because of the violence done by an adult?Muerkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00983180202172098977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8770341086445997547.post-23747147157892611632009-01-09T18:27:00.000+13:002009-01-09T18:27:00.000+13:00This comment has been removed by the author.DPF:TLDRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06372937855256319716noreply@blogger.com