Legislation against possible child abuse
I don’t have an opinion on this, I am merely posting it because
a) It is more likely to affect men
b) A select committee has expanded the bill.
I don’t have any information to hand on that but if anyone does please comment.
Legislation cracks down on child abusers
A select committee is recommending more details be required to define professions where employees will be security vetted.
It’s also added 18 extra offences to the list of convictions that’d ban a person from working with, or having responsibility for, children in their job.
If the general assertion that women are as violent as men holds true why would these changes affect men more than women?
@mee too – Because unfortunately, women are not subject to the same targeting as men. Our society mitigates their behaviours but issues harsh punishments for the same behaviours from men.
1st the true facts need out before charging that person is an abuser, because if false accused then it destroy the person more than it is now
Even if there is nothing wrong with this legislation there is always the possibility of the act expanding (as the Domestic Violence Act did)in this case to include allegations of domestic violence.
This legislation may be intended to hit men more than women, who knows? But as there is increasing awareness that sexual abuse of boys is both a fairly common situation and that in some cases, the long term consequences are serious (particularly for women). As a result, women can expect to be on the receiving end as often as men, quite possibly more so, according to USA child abuse statistics.
There can be quite a cruel element, in that when women carried out these actions, they were confident that these laws would never be enforced against them. But, in fact in the near future, they may be prosecuted as vigorously as men perpetrators.
A further aspect of cruelty to women, is that in most cases, women will be very poorly placed to defend themselves from such prosecutions, as they will have occurred in environments where the women were alone with the children.
In the absence of hard evidence, anything can and will happen, so that these charges will be extremely difficult to defend.
Justice processes become random, hazardous and barbaric, when there is no evidence to guide them, like a missile with the guidance controls turned off. Spectacular to watch from a huge distance.
Where possible, better to protect children effectively in the first place, than to just prosecute and profit from the mess.
The random publishing of sounds good legislation reminds me of the old story of Chicken Licken or Henny Penny.
Sounds good now, sometimes translates into damned dangerous afterwards?
From our quick perusal of this bill, it intends to require employers under threat of large fines to vet all employees who do or might work with children, and to ‘safety check’ them at regular intervals, to ensure they have not been convicted of certain crimes or present a risk for any other (unspecified) reason. If the employer finds an employee has committed any of the qualifying crimes (many of which will have had nothing to do with children, and no ‘clean slate’ will be recognized) then the employer is required to dismiss the worker as if that worker committed serious misconduct, with no redundancy or other entitlements that may exist in the worker’s employment contract. This appears to be regardless of the basis on which the worker was hired, e.g. whether or not the worker admitted the crime when applying for the job.
While at first glance crimes like ‘sexual violation’ may seem justified for excluding work with children, the truth is that many such convictions result from totally non-violent situations in which the ‘offender’ believed both parties were consenting but the ‘victim’ later claimed otherwise. Convictions for sexual crimes even occur when consent was beyond doubt conveyed (or the ‘victim’ actually initiated all activity) but, under various grounds, consent was later decided to have been legally invalid.
This is draconian legislation that is so scatter-gun, cruel and unjust only because it is clear that men will mainly be its victims. It represents yet another serious erosion of the rights and welfare of men. It will greatly increase the employment of women over men and that is probably one of the unspoken intentions of this law.
The proposed list of ‘qualifying crimes’ is as follows:
(aa)section 98 (dealing in slaves):
(aab)section 98AA (dealing in people under 18 for sexual exploitation):
(a)section 128B (sexual violation):
(b)section 129 (attempted sexual violation and assault with intent to commit sexual violation):
(c)section 129A (sexual conduct with consent induced by certain threats):
(d)section 130 (incest):
(e)section 131 (sexual conduct with dependent family member):
(f)section 131B (meeting young person following sexual grooming, etc):
(g)section 132 (sexual conduct with child under 12):
(ga)section 133 (indecency with girl under 12):
(h)section 134 (sexual conduct with young person under 16):
(i)section 135 (indecent assault):
(j)section 138 (sexual exploitation of person with significant impairment):
(ja)section 139 (indecent act between woman and girl):
(jb)section 140 (indecency with boy under 12):
(jc)section 140A (indecency with boy between 12 and 16):
(jd)section 141 (indecent assault on man or boy):
(je)section 142A (compelling indecent act with animal):
(jf)section 143 (bestiality):
(k)section 144A (sexual conduct with children and young people outside New Zealand):
(l)section 144C (organising or promoting child sex tours):
(m)section 154 (abandoning child under 6):
(oa)section 172 (punishment of murder):
(p)section 173 (attempt to murder):
(pa)section 177 (punishment of manslaughter):
(q)section 178 (infanticide):
(qa)section 182 (killing of unborn child):
(r)section 188 (wounding with intent):
(s)section 189(1) (injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm):
(t)section 191 (aggravated wounding or injury):
(u)section 194 (assault on child):
(v)section 195 (ill-treatment or neglect of child or vulnerable adult):
(w)section 195A (failure to protect child or vulnerable adult):
(x)section 198 (discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent):
(xa)section 204A (female genital mutilation):
(xb)section 204B (further offences relating to female genital mutilation):
(y)section 208 (abduction for purposes of marriage or sexual connection):
(ya)section 209 (kidnapping):
(z)section 210 (abduction of young person under 16).
2 An offence that is equivalent to an offence against any section of the Crimes Act 1961 referred to in subclause (1), but that was committed against a provision of the Crimes Act 1961 that has been repealed, is a specified offence.
3 An attempt to commit any offence referred to in subclause (1) or (2), where the offence is not itself specified as an attempt and the provision does not itself provide that the offence may be completed on an attempt, is a specified offence.
4 A conspiracy to commit any offence referred to in subclause (1) or (2) is a specified offence.
5 An offence against any of the following sections of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act 1993 is a specified offence for the purpose of subpart 3 of Part 1:
(a)section 124 (offences relating to objectionable publications, involving knowledge):
(b)section 127(4) (exhibition to persons under 18):
(c)section 131A (offences relating to possession of objectionable publications, involving knowledge).
6 An offence against section 209(1A) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is a specified offence for the purpose of subpart 3 of Part 1.
I don’t have any problem with stopping people convicted of these crimes (or at least, most of them) from being kept away from working or responsibility for children.
However its another matter altogether if the next step is to bar them from having or raising their own children.
However, how far should we take these things? Should there be a limit time-wise?
Commit certain of these crimes, bar public access to kids, sure – but only for a period!
Maybe 3-strikes you’re out (prevented from working with kids) for ever!
Many sex offenders undertake rehabilitative programmes that cite something like 96% success. Should those people never again have or be responsible for children? Would we say a man who at 18 rapes a 17yo woman, should never again be responsible for children? It doesn’t add up.
Are we to conclude people who commit these crimes cannot ever ‘go-straight’?
Then why pretend prison serves to rehabilitate? What good is parole?
Where should we draw the line?
criminal offenders of these crimes today; Other offences included tomorrow.
Physical violence today; domestic / psychological violence tomorrow.
Convicted crimes today; alleged crimes tomorrow.
Actual crimes today; assumed Pre-disposition to commit crimes tomorrow!
Once a criminal, not always a criminal!
For example, a large number of adults have previously had sexual contact with under-age minors – when they themselves were under-aged minors! That doesn’t mean for a minute that they are likely to have or want sex with minors a years later! There is no risk!
I married a 20yo once; I am not likely to ever do it again!
A law such like this is the thin edge of the wedge, where social manipulation can extend the wedge and eventually, you will have a situation where every man is by law deemed a risk to children – merely because they are male! Men can ultimately be denied the very essence of being a mnan – fatherhood.
And the ever left leaning socialist feminism-gone-mad society will lap it up, all in the name of a perceived greater good.
OMG #7. Good piece.
It’s a shame we can no longer rely on a reasonable level of accuracy in convictions especially for sexual offences, since law changes have already expanded their definitions to include many benign behaviours and since laws have been changed to allow easier convictions. Through such ploys for example as having no statute of limitation regarding time before complaints, through disallowing cross-examination of complainants about their own moral background and trustworthiness, through allowing complainants to be referred to as ‘victims’ before any crime has been proven, through allowing the complainant’s leading evidence to be done by showing a pre-recorded video interview that did not involve any oath of honesty or gravitas that exists in Court, through allowing complainants to avoid facing the accused, through allowing complainants to give evidence videoed from another room with ‘support people’ next to them (both allowing prompting of the complainant’s answers and suggesting to the jury that the accused is so dangerous the complainant can’t even give evidence in the same room), and so on.