Not an offence,just removing a defence

Bradford and Clark are still insisting that their law does not ban smacking because it does not create a new offence of smacking, it just removes an existing defence.

Now this is a ludicrous assertion which fails the common sense test. They are arguing form over substance. But in case anyone is stupid enough to actually give it credence, let look at applying their logic further.

Section 59 is just one of many defences under the Crimes Act. Another is Section 48:

Self-defence and defence of another

Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

Now think if Helen and Sue came along and got rid of Section 48. You and I would say they have banned using force in self-defence. They would argue no they have not – that they have merely removed it as a defence!!

Or think if Section 56 went:

Defence of land or building

Every one in peaceable possession of any land or building, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting by his authority, is justified in using reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing on the land or building or to remove him there from, if he does not strike or do bodily harm to that person.

Now you and I would say they have banned people from forcibly evicting trespassers. But Sue and Helen would claim no they have just removed it as a defence.

Pathetic isn’t it? I mean how stupid do they take us to be, and how much contempt do they have to try such puerile attempts to deceive? Why can’t they just tell the truth and say “Yes the bill will ban smacking”.