NZ Herald 22 July 2016Family First Comment: Children deserve the fullest protection of the strongest law we can give them. When adults thrash, bash and shake little children, they should not be able to hide behind the lesser manslaughter charge. It’s murder.Anyone inflicting violence against children should be charged with murder, rather than manslaughter, a family safety advocate says.Tawera Wesley Wichman, 24, was sentenced at the Wellington High Court today to three years and 10 months in prison for shaking his 11-month-old daughter Teegan Tairoa-Wichman to death in 2009.Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said this was a tragic case which involved a vulnerable family.“He [Wichman] was young and it seemed like there was support to start with and it dissipated over time.“The support lessened over time but it was pretty evident the family weren’t out of the woods yet,” he said.He thought a manslaughter charge shouldn’t apply when extreme violence was inflicted on babies and toddlers.“Children are vulnerable. To argue that injury or death was not intentional, so therefore murder can’t be applied … it doesn’t do justice.”McCoskrie said in this case, the parents were told of the dangers of shaking a baby.“They knew they couldn’t shake a baby.“When dealing with children and babies, you should be able to foresee shaking or treating a baby or toddler roughly or with violence could result in injury or death,” he said.He said it was clear Child Youth and Family (CYF) had high concerns for the twins when they were discharged from the special-care baby unit.“To me, this shows the whole issue of when the red flags are raised and when it is clear these are the ones we need to put time and resources into.”He said it didn’t matter whether the act of violence was just one-off or over a long period of time.READ MORE: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11678945
RelatedPosts Cleric urges Christians to avoid ill-gotten wealth to attain greatness in life It’s unfair to discuss 2023 election now, opposition tells Enugu PDP After 13 years of enmity, Enugu ex-Governors in closed door meeting Adamawa United Football Club of Yola and Akwa Starlets FC of Uyo have qualified for the final match of the Nigeria National League 2019 Super Four Tournament in Enugu. Adamawa United defeated Jigawa Golden Stars 8-7 after penalty kicks, following a 1-1 draw in the first match of the tournament holding at the Nnamdi Azikiwe Stadium in Enugu. In the second match, Akwa Starlets FC overpowered Warri Wolves FC 3-1 also on penalty kicks after a goalless draw. Later on, Adamawa United’s coach Bello Muhammad expressed joy at his team’s victory over the Jigawa Stars. Muhammad said the competition meant a lot for his team and that he would correct the lapses he discovered in their play before the final match on Sunday. He said: “This justified our play-off performance and it showed that we merited to play in the Nigeria Professional Football League. “My team gave its best and we are ready to play against the big teams in the premiership.” Also, Akwa Starlets’ coach Caleb Osu said their victory was not a fluke as his team fought hard for it. Osun said: “It is not easy, but my boys have played to instructions and that was the key to our victory. “Hopefully, we must now win the competition because our greatest threat had been Warri Wolves. “Our objectives are to now go on to win the final match and go on to do well to avoid the drop from the forthcoming NPFL season.” The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Jigawa United will now face Warri Wolves in the third-place match on Sunday by 2pm. The final match of the tournament between Akwa Starlets and Adamawa United will start by 4pm.Tags: Adamaw UnitedAkwa StarletsEnugu StateJigawa Golden StarsNnamdi Azikiwe Stadium
Court-ordered Article 106 March 19 elections…engaging in more ‘constitutional heresy’Former Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall has accused the David Granger-led Administration of practising “constitutional heresy” by still holding Cabinet meetings but under a different name while ignoring the recent ruling by acting Chief Justice (CJ) Roxane George.Former Attorney General Anil NandlallNandlall said that in her ruling, the CJ stated clearly that in accordance with the Constitution and upon the successful passage of the no-confidence motion, on December 21, 2018, the President (David Granger), as well as the Cabinet, was taken to have resigned.“To circumvent the CJ’s ruling and to subvert the express language of the Constitution, the Government continues to meet and make decisions, but they are not calling those meetings Cabinet, but a ‘Ministerial Plenary and the Secretary to this extra-constitutional body who used to be the Secretary to the Cabinet (Edward Persico), that person is now called Secretary to the plenary,” he explained.MockeryThis move, according to Nandlall, highlights how Government is making a mockery of both the acting CJ’s decision, as well as the express provisions of the Constitution. He reminded that the Constitution provided for an institution called Cabinet and that institution is to advise the President on the direction in which the Government should go policy-wise and in accordance with good governance.He argued, “Cabinet has been disbanded so to speak by the CJ’s ruling and by the express language of provision of the Constitution by the passage of the no-confidence motion. You can’t concoct another agency calling it a name and imbuing it with the power to perform the functions that Cabinet used to be performing. I’ve never heard anything like this, nowhere in the Caribbean or Commonwealth…”The former AG also described the situation as a constitutional travesty.Constitutional heresyPresident David GrangerMeanwhile, in making reference to statements made by Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, where he told the press that the plenary of Ministers had the same powers as Cabinet, Nandlall said he disagreed with that reasoning.“Where did they get that from? Where did the plenary of Cabinet Ministers, whatever that amorphous organisation is, is not provided anywhere in the laws. The Constitution creates a Cabinet and it ascribes to Cabinet the functional responsibilities that Cabinet is to perform,” he added.Again, Nandlall said that it could only be seen as constitutional heresy at its worst. His reasoning for this is that all of the decisions which are now being made are unconstitutional and illegal. “At some time they will have to set aside that as illegal and unlawful, because it is,” he stated.Minister Harmon was the first to reveal this information, stating that the plenary of ministers have met as a collective to note contracts from the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) and give approval for various official government appointments.The Minister revealed that the plenary approved diplomatic relations with San Marino, the appointment of a new Indian High Commissioner and a non-resident Ambassador from Kuwait.The plenary gave its consent for the reconstitution of the National Data Management Authority (NDMA); a Value Added Tax (VAT) Appeal tribunal and also approved the Customs and Trade Single Window System Bill 2019. This Bill, Harmon explained, will pave the way for improved processing of data.Harmon defended the meeting of the plenary, noting that such meetings were also held last year. The Minister was asked to explain under which law is a plenary of Ministers authorised to meet and ‘note’ contracts.“The plenaries are an extended Cabinet with all the Ministers included. It is noted that there is in fact a judgement of the court that was made with respect to the Cabinet. That judgement was appealed. But we have not had a stay of the judgement, and as such, we have not held Cabinet meetings.”“Ministerial plenaries are chaired by the President and include all the Ministers. It, therefore, has all the powers that a Cabinet has… the appointment of a Minister, sitting as a Minister appointed in a full meeting with the President has the full authority of the Government to perform his functions.”Government fell to a no-confidence vote brought against it on December 21, 2018. It took the matter to the High Court, but was defeated. The matter is now with the Appeal Court.President Granger and his Government have said they are waiting on the pending legal cases, but Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo has already warned that transactions approved by an illegal Cabinet run the risk of not being recognised.