Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 
13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 2055942 13-Jul-2018 19:05
Send private message

mm1352000:

 

dejadeadnz: Here's some news for you...

 

Assuming that you're right and Kath's situation from a law perspective is an open and shut case, I'm just wondering about what sort of potential defence she might hope to mount, were she taken to court.

 

Some people "draw a line" beyond which principles trump "rules". Given the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it!) circumstances, these people will intentionally break the law.

 

Three questions:

 

1. Given that you're a lawyer, you may not be able to answer this. Nevertheless...

 

In your personal capacity, are there any situations in which you would - for any reason - intentionally break the law, the rules of your profession, or similar?

 

2. Are there any precedents that you're aware of for this kind of behaviour/case/defence in NZ law?

 

3. Sorry if this is a stupid question. In NZ, is there a court or tribunal to which one can appeal "beyond" the law? For example, on a matter in which people might consider the law to be in contradiction with human rights. (Extreme, I know. Totally hypothetical.)

 

 

Oh dear.

 

If its open and shut, its likely there wont be many defense options

 

If people know the law, and break it, well the answer is quite obvious.

 

If NZ had laws that were in contradiction to Human Rights laws, i'd be a bit surprised. You may get that in the US where parts of the Constitution are still based on cowboys and indians. 

 

But another here can answer more appropriately. 


1080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 2055949 13-Jul-2018 19:26
Send private message

tdgeek: Thats not...

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

tdgeek: Wow. Ive been here longer than you. Ive known the defendant online longer than you. Either you have handpicked a few posts to suit (maybe the Trump thread), or maybe your religious beliefs colour your glasses.

 

Defendant? Ummm - okay... re-reading... ahhh.

 

First and foremost, the last thing I ever want to do is frame a personal attack.

 

@Fred99 I unreservedly apologise if that part of my reply came over that way. I can see how it might have. Sorry. It wasn't my intention.

 

tdgeek: I have no issue at all with religious people, I respect that. We are all different, but it seems to me that your posts are subsequently biased. Strength is having bias, but being able to sit on the fence and see both sides of the grass.

 

Yes, I'll freely admit I'm biased in many ways. I think we all are. Can't help it. For me in this specific thread, it's a religious bias. Like I said in an earlier reply: raised in a Christian family and all that. To be clear though, I wouldn't claim to be a Christian now. I don't attend church. Nevertheless, once formed, it isn't always easy to change one's world view! I think some parts of religion have great value, and so I still involuntarily become a bit defensive when I come into contact with anti-religious views. All I can do is try to acknowledge my bias and be fair when responding or making claims that could be influenced by it.

 

In this case I can see both sides - the couple's, and Kath's - side of the issue. Maybe I don't feel the couple's objection as sharply as I should. This is a sensitive subject, and unfortunately there's nobody in my circle of friends and colleagues who I feel able to approach and ask to put the couple's argument with the force it deserves.

 

Fair?


13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 2055955 13-Jul-2018 19:46
Send private message

mm1352000:

 

tdgeek: Thats not...

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

tdgeek: Wow. Ive been here longer than you. Ive known the defendant online longer than you. Either you have handpicked a few posts to suit (maybe the Trump thread), or maybe your religious beliefs colour your glasses.

 

Defendant? Ummm - okay... re-reading... ahhh.

 

First and foremost, the last thing I ever want to do is frame a personal attack.

 

@Fred99 I unreservedly apologise if that part of my reply came over that way. I can see how it might have. Sorry. It wasn't my intention.

 

tdgeek: I have no issue at all with religious people, I respect that. We are all different, but it seems to me that your posts are subsequently biased. Strength is having bias, but being able to sit on the fence and see both sides of the grass.

 

Yes, I'll freely admit I'm biased in many ways. I think we all are. Can't help it. For me in this specific thread, it's a religious bias. Like I said in an earlier reply: raised in a Christian family and all that. To be clear though, I wouldn't claim to be a Christian now. I don't attend church. Nevertheless, once formed, it isn't always easy to change one's world view! I think some parts of religion have great value, and so I still involuntarily become a bit defensive when I come into contact with anti-religious views. All I can do is try to acknowledge my bias and be fair when responding or making claims that could be influenced by it.

 

In this case I can see both sides - the couple's, and Kath's - side of the issue. Maybe I don't feel the couple's objection as sharply as I should. This is a sensitive subject, and unfortunately there's nobody in my circle of friends and colleagues who I feel able to approach and ask to put the couple's argument with the force it deserves.

 

Fair?

 

 

Fair. Bias is fine. But you need to sit on the fence and look at both sides. The law of discrimination in NZ isn't subjective. Its not an option that we should be guided by. Its a law. If you were discriminated against due to your colour, race and so on, you would not be happy, its unfair. Its unfair to that gay couple as well. 


1080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 2055959 13-Jul-2018 19:58
Send private message

tdgeek: Oh dear.

 

I had to ask. :)

 

tdgeek: If its open and shut, its likely there wont be many defense options

 

If people know the law, and break it, well the answer is quite obvious.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought extenuating circumstances sometimes played a role in our legal system. I also thought the police/prosecutor had the ability to choose whether to prosecute or not. If it was a civil case, what about the possibility of settling out of court? Those are the sorts of factors I was wondering about.

 

I guess some of this stuff depends on how the case is prosecuted, but unfortunately I'm also ignorant of that. I mean, in this particular case, how likely is it that Kath would be taken to court? Would it be considered normal for the police to bring a case if they could gather enough evidence... or is it up to the couple... or is there some other body who would act on the couple's behalf...?

 

[edit: Posted before I saw tdgeek's latest reply.]


7347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3841


  Reply # 2055963 13-Jul-2018 20:12
One person supports this post
Send private message

mm1352000:

 

Fred99: I used to be religious...

 

I'm surprised! At times when I've read your posts on this forum I've observed what I would describe as a bitter, anti-religious undertone, supported by inaccurate assertions like the most recent fear-of-loss-of-money-and-privilege. I sincerely hope your attitude is not a consequence of negative experiences.

 

 

Oh - what utter, total, supercilious claptrap.

 

1) You're not "surprised". Do you think that someone would call out hypocrisy based on wild guesses and ignorance?  Even the blatant utter BS?

 

2) My assertions - calling out blatant religious hypocrisy - if you disagree with them, call it out at the time.

 

3) "Negative experiences"??? ROFL.  I'd worked out how shallow and hypocritical much of the church so-called Christianity was long ago.  That was uplifting.


1080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 2055975 13-Jul-2018 20:40
Send private message

Fred99: Oh - what utter, total, supercilious claptrap.

 

Okay. A little blow-back is fair enough. I can take that on the chin.

 

Fred99: 1) You're not "surprised".

 

That was the truth, and I won't renege on that.

 

Fred99: Do you think that someone would call out hypocrisy based on wild guesses and ignorance?  Even the blatant utter BS?

 

Unfortunately I didn't interpret your posts as calling out hypocrisy, and yes, unfortunately some people in our society do make comment based on "wild guesses and ignorance". Like I said: I was surprised. Wasn't sure what to make of it.

 

Fred99: 2) My assertions - calling out blatant religious hypocrisy - if you disagree with them, call it out at the time.

 

Okay. I've registered that I strongly disagree with your assertions, and why. I think it might be best to leave it at that.

 

Fred99: 3) "Negative experiences"??? ROFL.  I'd worked out how shallow and hypocritical much of the church so-called Christianity was long ago.  That was uplifting.

 

I was trying (and evidently failing) to be sensitive. I'm unspeakably happy that's not the case, and that you can laugh about/at my comment.


3102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1201

Subscriber

  Reply # 2056144 14-Jul-2018 14:12
Send private message

Surprised that is hasn't been said yet. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against people for reasons that are not outlawed by the human rights act or other laws. If I owned a shop, I can discriminate against people in bare feet, wearing singlets, owning iPhones, or buying their electricity from Mercury energy. (or any number of other reasons that I could think of) Those people might not like it, but tough. As long as whatever I'm discriminating against is not a prohibited type of discrimination. They can't do anything about it.

As for being allowed to break certain laws. Most common example is a Police officer being allowed to break the speed limit, as part of their policing work. Fire fighters are allowed to break and enter buildings for the purpose of putting out a fire. Lawyers are allowed to break their strict rules for keeping client information confidential, if their client says that they intend to commit an act of terrorism, or a number of other serious crimes.





gzt

10173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1557


  Reply # 2056184 14-Jul-2018 15:27
Send private message

Many people appear to believe the USA supreme court ruled this is ok in the USA.

It did not.

In fact - the usa supreme court effectively ruled that the local colorado government civil rights body used some very bad language in it's communication with the baker - Ie; the baker was let off on a technicality.

7347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3841


  Reply # 2056213 14-Jul-2018 16:12
One person supports this post
Send private message

Aredwood: 

As for being allowed to break certain laws. Most common example is a Police officer being allowed to break the speed limit, as part of their policing work. Fire fighters are allowed to break and enter buildings for the purpose of putting out a fire. Lawyers are allowed to break their strict rules for keeping client information confidential, if their client says that they intend to commit an act of terrorism, or a number of other serious crimes.

 

But if there's provision in the law allowing for them to do that, it's not breaking the law.

 

 


7347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3841


  Reply # 2056214 14-Jul-2018 16:26
One person supports this post
Send private message

gzt: Many people appear to believe the USA supreme court ruled this is ok in the USA.

It did not.

In fact - the usa supreme court effectively ruled that the local colorado government civil rights body used some very bad language in it's communication with the baker - Ie; the baker was let off on a technicality.

 

True - and I was surprised to read that - as it was being touted widely in headlines as a huge victory (and elsewhere specifically over "libtards" etc).

 

The way I read it, if you're going to prosecute bigots, focus on the fact that they're bigots - the reason why they're bigots doesn't matter and in that case you risk losing the case by attacking their beliefs.   Also - be consistent - don't prosecute selectively because you're biased against their beliefs.  Seems to be a reasonable life lesson there too - speak out against bigotry even if it's your "mates" - don't just condemn people you don't like if they do exactly the same thing.


3102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1201

Subscriber

  Reply # 2056225 14-Jul-2018 18:12
Send private message

Fred99:

Aredwood: 

As for being allowed to break certain laws. Most common example is a Police officer being allowed to break the speed limit, as part of their policing work. Fire fighters are allowed to break and enter buildings for the purpose of putting out a fire. Lawyers are allowed to break their strict rules for keeping client information confidential, if their client says that they intend to commit an act of terrorism, or a number of other serious crimes.


But if there's provision in the law allowing for them to do that, it's not breaking the law.


 



Those examples are unlikely to be an unconditional "get out of jail free" card for people in those professions. They would still be expected to weigh up the seriousness of the thing that they want to stop / report etc Vs the seriousness of the law that they will break in doing so.





2556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205


  Reply # 2056698 15-Jul-2018 21:13
Send private message

It was pretty clearly illegal if they only refused because of the couples sexual orientation. The human rights laws are pretty clear on that.

 

It was also dopey. Had I not wanted to do their cake because of religious objections (and for context I don't have any, don't care about their sexual orientation, and would probably have made the cake were I a baker and approached to do so) I would have stated another faux reason for not doing it. One that clearly didn't break the law. Something like: "I'm sorry, but my order book is full for that week and I can't take on any more work".

 

That being said, a wedding is supposed to be a happy occasion. Mine certainly was. I wouldn't have wanted someone making the cake, or supplying anything else or even attending, if they didn't approve of the wedding and wish me well; and were only doing so under legal duress.


5079 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2068


  Reply # 2057002 16-Jul-2018 11:48
2 people support this post
Send private message

I think the baker Kath acted illegally and should have set aside her persona; beliefs and baked the cake.

 

For the record, I find her behaviour to be wrong- but my opinion is irrelevant too because her behaviour was  illegal.

 

I actually object more strongly to the mass pile-in targeting this woman on social media. 

 

It seems people generally love a 'moral' excuse to alienate and attack others.  We really are very nasty little primates

 

 

 

 

 

 





Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.