5 ms·

I'm continuously amazed by all of the major political parties here in New Zealand who keep using logic and facts instead of merely political stances. Our proces

I'm continuously amazed by all of the major political parties here in New Zealand who keep using logic and facts instead of merely political stances. Our process of making laws is open, listens to the people as well as lobbyists, and yet allows room for policy differences.

SeanDav 13y ago
NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."
- holloway 13y ago
  Great Ape personhood, or at least granting them the right to not have cruel tests done, has been done by several other nations not just New Zealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood I can't remember the exact wording but one provision was about how they couldn't be exported unless it was in their best interests. E.g. you can't sell them a circus overseas in which they would likely receive cruel treatment. So it's not about calling them people, it's about giving them some rights because they have sentience.
  - SeanDav 13y ago
    I don't agree with the label, I do agree with the principle. Many animals show signs of sentience and even if they don't, they should not be allowed to undergo cruel testing. To try to only apply this to great apes shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved. It is often human nature to be guilty of anthropomorphizing. The intentions are noble, but the focus is too narrow and the label is quite frankly, ridiculous.
    - holloway 13y ago
      The label is a bit weird, I agree, but personhood is an established legal concept with clear interpretations and case law so I just think of it as lawyer speak. Extremely disabled people may lack clear communication and yet a person who makes decisions on their behalf is guided by similar principles. The argument in favour of personhood is that the benefits of that legal history outweigh the superficial qualms by using a slightly wrong title. While other animals have sentience too this is about the thin edge of the wedge, and what's achievable in politics. You go for the creatures that are nearest to human and then increase it as is appropriate. It's important to establish precedent and not to go too far at once or else the first step will fail and politicians won't touch it again for a long time. I see it more as practical political expediency rather than a lack of understanding of how non-apes may be sentient too.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Sure, we all know since Descartes that animals are robot-like objects, have no feelings and no emotion and should be treated as such. So, let's make sure the Law does not take in account any of the discoveries related to emotion and pain in animals, and let's keep business as usual and feel good about it. Sums up your position ?
  - LatvjuAvs 13y ago
    So sheep is stupid meat on 4 sticks :D
  - SeanDav 13y ago
    Wow, over-reaction, much? Look, I could go on and make several well reasoned arguments about how animals are not human but clearly it would be wasted on you. Just a quick question, but once you have given Chimps human rights and said Chimps go on and kill and eat other apes/monkeys, as they commonly do in the wild - would you have them up for murder and cannibalism charges with appropriate punishments?
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      OK, maybe I took your comment the wrong way. Sorry about that. The way you wrote your comment gave me the impression that you were saying animals are not worthy of compassion, but if that's not the case then it's all good.
      - sigzero 13y ago
        Compassion...sure. Human rights? No.
        chris_wot 13y ago
        Why?
        afreak 13y ago
        I would argue that if we are to give chimpanzees human rights then we may as well start enforcing building codes for beavers and ants. What is unnatural (law) does not necessarily work for those the animal kingdom. It should not be forgotten that animals have a certain level of rights to coexist with us on Earth but at the same time it does a disservice to humanity to treat them as our equals.
- ajuc 13y ago
  And what's wrong with that?
  - sigzero 13y ago
    They are not human. I agree there should be some for of animal rights for them...but they are not human so they do not get "human rights".
    - cpursley 13y ago
      This is why I love HN. This conversation went from NZ software patents to the legal status of apes in NZ in no time.
      - drharris 13y ago
        If it were reddit, we'd already be on the subject of throwing feces.
    - ajuc 13y ago
      This is still net benefit. Call the law FooBarBuzz if you prefer, I don't care as long as it is a good law.
- grecy 13y ago
  > but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Hilariously, everyone replying to you has missed the point. NZ has so many things fundamentally right they actually have time and money to debate and discuss giving more thought to the treatment of animals. Meanwhile, America is stuck bickering about basic healthcare, gay rights, gun control, abortion and education for HUMANS.
jamiepenney 13y ago
Except for the "we made a mistake, now we are retrofitting the law so that we did not make a mistake" laws that have been passed over the last few years. The Search and Surveillance Bill, as well as the upcoming changes to the GCSB spring to mind. At least these are just the government covering it's own ass, rather than out and out corruption.
ppog 13y ago
Our process of making laws mostly listens to the people, but it it is contingent on the government's willingness to listen. The problem is the lack of rules around urgency (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/parliaments-urgency-provision-being-abused-cw-104826 http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/parliaments-urgency-provision-b...). For non-Kiwis, urgency allows a government to force through a bill in a hurry and without consultation. The loophole is that urgency doesn't require a supermajority and there are no limits on the kind of bills that can be passed this way: if the government decides to bypass the normal legislative process, there's not much anyone can do to stop it. The result is that governments have used urgency as a way to pass major and controversial laws without full consultation or debate. Examples include 'three strikes' (http://boingboing.net/2011/04/15/new-zealands-3-strik.html http://boingboing.net/2011/04/15/new-zealands-3-strik.html), the 'Hobbit Act' (http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-bill-becomes-law/tabid/419/articleID/183735/Default.aspx http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-bill-becomes-law/tabid/419/art...) and the GCSB (spy) bill (http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/05/house-goes-into-urgency-for-gcsb-bill/ http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/05/house-goes-into-urgency...). Whether you agree or disagree on the merits of the bills, I do think it's fair to say that all deserved more debate and consultation than they got. And I'd argue that all of these examples were driven by lobbying (from the media industry, the Hobbit producers and the espionage agencies). Our process of making laws is generally healthy and open, but it does have dangerous blind spots.
hpagey 13y ago
Yes, I believe it is easier to listen to 4M people than 300 M people.

SeanDav 13y ago

NZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."

holloway 13y ago
Great Ape personhood, or at least granting them the right to not have cruel tests done, has been done by several other nations not just New Zealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood I can't remember the exact wording but one provision was about how they couldn't be exported unless it was in their best interests. E.g. you can't sell them a circus overseas in which they would likely receive cruel treatment. So it's not about calling them people, it's about giving them some rights because they have sentience.
- SeanDav 13y ago
  I don't agree with the label, I do agree with the principle. Many animals show signs of sentience and even if they don't, they should not be allowed to undergo cruel testing. To try to only apply this to great apes shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved. It is often human nature to be guilty of anthropomorphizing. The intentions are noble, but the focus is too narrow and the label is quite frankly, ridiculous.
  - holloway 13y ago
    The label is a bit weird, I agree, but personhood is an established legal concept with clear interpretations and case law so I just think of it as lawyer speak. Extremely disabled people may lack clear communication and yet a person who makes decisions on their behalf is guided by similar principles. The argument in favour of personhood is that the benefits of that legal history outweigh the superficial qualms by using a slightly wrong title. While other animals have sentience too this is about the thin edge of the wedge, and what's achievable in politics. You go for the creatures that are nearest to human and then increase it as is appropriate. It's important to establish precedent and not to go too far at once or else the first step will fail and politicians won't touch it again for a long time. I see it more as practical political expediency rather than a lack of understanding of how non-apes may be sentient too.
ekianjo 13y ago
Sure, we all know since Descartes that animals are robot-like objects, have no feelings and no emotion and should be treated as such. So, let's make sure the Law does not take in account any of the discoveries related to emotion and pain in animals, and let's keep business as usual and feel good about it. Sums up your position ?
- LatvjuAvs 13y ago
  So sheep is stupid meat on 4 sticks :D
- SeanDav 13y ago
  Wow, over-reaction, much? Look, I could go on and make several well reasoned arguments about how animals are not human but clearly it would be wasted on you. Just a quick question, but once you have given Chimps human rights and said Chimps go on and kill and eat other apes/monkeys, as they commonly do in the wild - would you have them up for murder and cannibalism charges with appropriate punishments?
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    OK, maybe I took your comment the wrong way. Sorry about that. The way you wrote your comment gave me the impression that you were saying animals are not worthy of compassion, but if that's not the case then it's all good.
    - sigzero 13y ago
      Compassion...sure. Human rights? No.
      - chris_wot 13y ago
        Why?
        afreak 13y ago
        I would argue that if we are to give chimpanzees human rights then we may as well start enforcing building codes for beavers and ants. What is unnatural (law) does not necessarily work for those the animal kingdom. It should not be forgotten that animals have a certain level of rights to coexist with us on Earth but at the same time it does a disservice to humanity to treat them as our equals.
ajuc 13y ago
And what's wrong with that?
- sigzero 13y ago
  They are not human. I agree there should be some for of animal rights for them...but they are not human so they do not get "human rights".
  - cpursley 13y ago
    This is why I love HN. This conversation went from NZ software patents to the legal status of apes in NZ in no time.
    - drharris 13y ago
      If it were reddit, we'd already be on the subject of throwing feces.
  - ajuc 13y ago
    This is still net benefit. Call the law FooBarBuzz if you prefer, I don't care as long as it is a good law.
grecy 13y ago
> but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Hilariously, everyone replying to you has missed the point. NZ has so many things fundamentally right they actually have time and money to debate and discuss giving more thought to the treatment of animals. Meanwhile, America is stuck bickering about basic healthcare, gay rights, gun control, abortion and education for HUMANS.

jamiepenney 13y ago

Except for the "we made a mistake, now we are retrofitting the law so that we did not make a mistake" laws that have been passed over the last few years. The Search and Surveillance Bill, as well as the upcoming changes to the GCSB spring to mind. At least these are just the government covering it's own ass, rather than out and out corruption.

ppog 13y ago

Our process of making laws mostly listens to the people, but it it is contingent on the government's willingness to listen. The problem is the lack of rules around urgency (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/parliaments-urgency-provision-being-abused-cw-104826 http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/parliaments-urgency-provision-b...). For non-Kiwis, urgency allows a government to force through a bill in a hurry and without consultation. The loophole is that urgency doesn't require a supermajority and there are no limits on the kind of bills that can be passed this way: if the government decides to bypass the normal legislative process, there's not much anyone can do to stop it. The result is that governments have used urgency as a way to pass major and controversial laws without full consultation or debate. Examples include 'three strikes' (http://boingboing.net/2011/04/15/new-zealands-3-strik.html http://boingboing.net/2011/04/15/new-zealands-3-strik.html), the 'Hobbit Act' (http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-bill-becomes-law/tabid/419/articleID/183735/Default.aspx http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-bill-becomes-law/tabid/419/art...) and the GCSB (spy) bill (http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/05/house-goes-into-urgency-for-gcsb-bill/ http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/05/house-goes-into-urgency...). Whether you agree or disagree on the merits of the bills, I do think it's fair to say that all deserved more debate and consultation than they got. And I'd argue that all of these examples were driven by lobbying (from the media industry, the Hobbit producers and the espionage agencies). Our process of making laws is generally healthy and open, but it does have dangerous blind spots.

hpagey 13y ago

Yes, I believe it is easier to listen to 4M people than 300 M people.