All posts by reed

Blackmail

Recently a friend was engaged in a dispute before the Employment Relations Authority and during a discussion between the parties the Judge* claimed, and advised all parties, that my friend’s conduct may amount to blackmail. One of the parties involved in the discussion was the Crown and the punishment for blackmail is up to 14 years imprisonment so it was quite a serious proposition**. This got me thinking about blackmail and whether it should be illegal or not.

As far as I can tell blackmail, extortion and duress are much the same thing and are of the following form…

Do X or I’ll do Z.

One problem with blackmail is that many obviously just interactions are this same form*** e.g. “give me a pay rise or I’ll accept another job offer” or “give me back my money or I’ll have you prosecuted for fraud”.

The difference, I think, between just blackmail and unjust blackmail is what is being requested (X) and what is being threatened (Z).

Proposing “do X or I’ll do Z” is no worse than doing X and/or Z.
If X or Z are unjust then laws against X or Z should be sufficient to cover unjust blackmail.
If X or Z are not unjust then laws against this type of blackmail would be unjust.

Therefore, I say, blackmail itself is not unjust and blackmail laws may be unjust in some situations.

My challenge to you is to find examples where blackmail laws would be justified and, where laws against the request and threat wouldn’t be justified.

 

——————————————————–
* ERA decision makers are not actually judges.
** Ironically similar to blackmail i.e. “don’t threaten us or we’ll prosecute you for blackmail”.
*** NZ law arbitrarily allows blackmail if the making of the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.

Just Bugger Off!

It has been suggested that advocating gay marriage legislation is libertarian. It’s not. Advocating gay marriage legislation is about imposing your morals on to others.

For those that think that advocating gay marriage is libertarian I have a question… what are homo couples being denied if government doesn’t legislate regarding same sex marriages?

It has been said if you don’t want gay marriage don’t have one – to that I say – just bugger off!

Unreasonable Contracts

A friend sent me this lecture and we have argued about a question raised in the second half of this lecture about contracts.

The example in the lecture has some tricky aspects so I have simplified the problem for discussion as follows…

A contractor sells his services for an unreasonable price.
The contractor knows his price is unreasonable.
The purchaser is naive but of sound mind and pays the contractor his unreasonable price.

The question is – is a third party (e.g. a Judge) justified in taking the money (less a reasonable fee for the contractor’s services) from the contractor and returning it to the purchaser?

In the lecture example the unreasonable price was extremely unreasonable.
Should the degree of unreasonableness be a consideration?

I’m working for the government!

It’s true, I am working for the government (although right now I am procrastinating by writing this blog entry).

The pay is not good – in fact – I am the one who has to pay. And woe to me should I make a mistake.

I don’t actually mind paying taxes – what I hate is the work that I am forced to do.

Advertising Standards Authority Society

I filed the following complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority Society this morning. (I hope this post is self explanatory. 🙂 )

This complaint is made under principle 3 (No advertisement should be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive the consumer).

It has come to my attention that the Advertising Standards Authority is not an authority in any meaningful sense and that the “Advertising Standards Authority” is actually a Society. The name of this Society is misleading. The name would cause members of the public to believe that the Advertising Standards Authority is a government empowered agency.

The Advertising Standards Society also misleadingly issues members of the public with “rulings” (definition: an authoritative decision or pronouncement, esp. one made by a judge).

It is reasonable to expect that many people have complied with the Society’s “rulings” because they were misled by the name of the society and thought there was an obligation to comply with “rulings”. It is also reasonable to expect that many members of the public have incurred costs in compliance as a result of the misleading language.

Can you please investigate?

When I get a response from them I will post it here.

Resources:
ASAS Incorporation Details
ASAS Online Complaint Form

Please Don’t Swear

Matt 5:33-37 Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Jam 5:12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear–not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.

To be a Member of Parliament you have to make the following Oath of Allegiance

I, …, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

It’s possible to refuse to take the oath and make an affirmation instead but an affirmation and an oath are effectively the same thing.

Every person shall be entitled as of right to make his affirmation, instead of taking an oath, in all places and for all purposes where an oath is required by law, and every such affirmation shall be of the same force and effect as an oath.

I would consider myself compromised by such an oath. I should not and would not give my allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors by oath or by its equivalent.

What about you, if the opportunity arose and you were elected as a Member of Parliament would you, should you take the Oath of Allegiance?