John Key on law breaking, all over the show like a mad woman's poo

I really shake my head sometimes at the Prime Minister. Today, when the economy is still screwed because “Karori” Bill English still hasn’t made a decision of he should make a decision to get a treasury report about him making a decision to do something, and he feels the need to comment on me! I? mean WTF!

He said it was the right of an individual to advocate against laws they disapproved of, but not to the extent of breaking the law.

“They can’t take the law into their own hands and that applies equally to Cameron Slater as it does to every other New Zealander.”

Then when he does comment he directly contradicts this statement which is the complete opposite of what he said about the Anti-Smacking legislation.

“Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable. It is up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children … Some people will continue to lightly smack their child for correction, some will not. It is up to them to decide.”

Uhmmm…John not it is not. Smacking children is specifically considered assault now under the law you refuse to change, not only that there is NO possible defense to that crime either. So according to John Key breaking law written in 1985 that is arcane, out of date an unworkable in a modern environment is “bad” and breaking a law that is a year old and is under the Crimes Act so punishable with prison and for which there is NO possible defence is ok.

Parliament when it wrote the Criminal Justice Act in 1985 deemed that breaking suppression orders, matters which go to the heart of our Justice system according to a big mouth cop in a small town, was so serious that it warranted rating only as a Summary offence with a maximum fine of just $1000 with zero possibility of a prison term. Pfffttt.

On the other hand, the law that John Key thinks is ok for parents to break, even though there is no defense possible if you do break it and get prosecuted, and therefore also carries a custodial sentence is just fine by him.

John Key also has suggested that police should not charge Maori MP Hone Harawira for driving without a helmet. WTF! so “Honest” Hone Harawira is able to be above the law and not be prosecuted but a blogger and one of his own MPs who drove a tractor up the steps of parliament isn’t. Is John Key the fricken Police Minister now?

I thought we got rid of the dictator at the last election. Obviously I was wrong.

If you are going to comment on the law John, how about you leave it to Christopher Finlayson who at least knows a little bit about it and had sensible things to say on newstalkZB this morning. No point in asking Simon “FIGJAM” Power, he’ll just tell the repeaters how hard and diligently he is working on aspects of a new law.

I’d say my confidence in John Key has now ebbed well below the 40% mark. The man is a pinko for sure.

Democracy Mum says it all in her last paragraph.

It is not up to the Prime Minister to decide, who should and should not be prosecuted.? Parliament makes the laws, the police prosecute and the judiciary pass sentence.? That?s just the way it works.

In the first instance the Prime Minister is trying to undermine an existing law by encouraging parents to ignore it, and in the second instance he is encouraging the police to ignore?an existing ?law and undermining their authority.

She is dead right. The Police independently, one would assume, have decided that I may have broken the law and so they laid charges. No problem with that. john Keys says I am not above the law, no problem with that, I’m not and nor should I be and if found guilty I will take the consequences. But he also says you can ignore some of the Crimes Act if you don’t fell like it, Big problem with that. And finally he gives an opinion, which is really an instruction when a Prime Minister says it, that someone shouldn’t be prosecuted when they broke a law on natonal television on the front steps of the Parliament when the law was written in the first place.

[shakes head again]

32%
×