In hindsight, correct. I should have held my tongue, so to speak.
Printable View
There isn't one. Muldoon famously once said something to the effect that - if he dreamt it at night, he could have legislated by lunchtime... there is no excuse here.Quote:
Out of Curiosity, what is the threshold for you for a situation that it is permissible for the Government, and its police, to not be bound by its own laws?
The requirement is that the govt must act lawfully or it can hardly expect it's citizens to. Process and accountability are always absolutely paramount. This is more serious than the compliant sheep people seem to understand.
Matters not to me because in the grand scheme of things (and lord know I despise this current govt) if not hunting for a few weeks meant some other bugger didn't get sick or lose a loved one to this nasty virus then so be it.
I stayed home not because the gov't said so but because it was the right thing to do to try and help avoid the health system failing to cope should this thing have got out of control.
True .. but its seems reasonably clear that they have deliberately ignored the legal opinion from their own Crown Law Office. And frankly the greater good argument might give them a pass in the court of stupefied public opinion, but the dangers here are substantive and considerable disquiet has been a part of our history for more minor matters in the past.. Fitzgerald v Muldoon for exampleQuote:
Good on Stug for asking the questions and challenging the status quo. But this whole thread is based on opinion and conjecture. Nothing is proven. Nothing has been tested. Legal opinions are worth nothing until tested. The Government are adamantly saying they acted legally. Who is correct? The Court will decide.
As is every discussion about anything almost ever......Probably mostly from fringe media, typically not exactly the mainstream Jacinda cheerleaders.....Quote:
The basis for almost every comment on here has been hearsay and opinion garnered from the press - that most on here seem to despise.
Hardly, nothing on here is conclusive. Discussion and information is a requirement of a society interested in making sure excesses are not tolerated and govts that seem to treat political perception as being more important than principle, need to hear the murmurings.Quote:
We have a right to dislike or despise the Gov and to express it. But to talk in absolute terms about legal matters that have neither been tested or proven is rash.
And if nobody talks about this stuff before it gets to court... then it won't get to court.Quote:
I absolutely agree that the corner stone of democracy is that Government must act within the law. If they act outside of it, (and depending on the severity) they should be held to account by parliament, the crown and the voter. But we 'aint there yet.
Listen up retard - solo hunting and fishing poses zero risk to anyone, the obvious exception being an accident of some sort requiring external assistance. Had you noticed this is a hunting/fishing/shooting forum? All that was required of us would be common sense regarding difficult country or rivers. So, upon discovering that the government, the police and the dept of health all deliberately and in collusion, LIED TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY, AND INTENDED TO HIDE THAT FACT, you don't expect any outpouring of anger and betrayal? perhaps you are a Stalinda/labour/green acolyte?
@Max Headroom has a perspective. That perspective is based on what we have learned re The Crown Law Office, I agree with Max.
Comrade Adern says "this"
Crown Law Office says "that"
Which one are you gonna believe?.............
It's gone well beyond whether or not we could've gone hunting,irrelevant IMO.
It's about the untruths....lies that we have been spoon fed from our lady and her comrades.
And you know what?..it's only the beginning :) Sad for those that are in denial..
Like I said. Both views are legitimately held and the Court is about to decide. And Max's is equally as legitimate too.
The Government don't make decisions in a vacuum and will be well informed but could be wrong. So could Crown law. The Court will decide. If the Gov's interpretation and approach is upheld, it means they acted lawfully - and then lingering dissatisfaction about the Gov can be decided at the ballot box. That's cool, because thats how democracy works.
Until the Court decides, the claims here that the Gov has acted unlawfully is simply wishful thinking. But, if through the Court or parliament scrutiny its revealed that the Gov has deceived us or wilfully acted ultra vires I will be pretty pissed, in spite of believing they have mostly taken the correct approaches.
The outcome of all this could move my opinion too. You missed this bit. But, if through the Court or parliament scrutiny its revealed that the Gov has deceived us or wilfully acted ultra vires I will be pretty pissed, in spite of believing they have mostly taken the correct approaches.
Consider it validation then young man... :)
But it probably was adding a little more complexity which may have needed to be considered..??
It has occurred to me just now that I have seen a lot of politicking over the years, much less so really good consistent governance. By either of the major parties.
Does anybody know of a really good example of competent governance over a complete elected term, here or overseas?
I need to be reminded of a good benchmark.
But you accept that they acted against their legal advice from Crown Law? That they took actions that their official expert legal advice said were unlawful, and tried to hide the truth about it.
So while it is still for the courts to decide if it was actually unlawful, it seems clear that their intention was to act unlawfully. They may have genuinely believed that action was necessary and for the greater good, the ends justify the means argument etc, but that's a very slippery slope...
I don't think that that assumption can be made. Crown Law is not the only source of legal advice that gov takes, and CL can be wrong. The Attorney General may defer to other advice, and may have. Or the leaked docs might not tell a complete story. And its the role of the courts to decide if it is illegal or not.
Look, Im not defending the Gov. I'm attempting to make a case for objectivity. Im very open to changing my mind and who I vote for.
Mountain Biking:
- rated high in ACC accident statistics
- rated high in Mountain Safety Council accident statistics
- general considered a risky activity
- often requires travel out of 'home area'
- examples of MTBer needing to be rescued by helicopter in first week of Level 4 Lock down
Status during Level 4 and Level 3: Allowed activity
Why does this bother me? It's not so much I couldn't go hunting. It shows that decisions made by this government are not based on facts, but ideological and emotional preferences.
Lets not pull our punches, at the first opportunity this government seems dead keen to persecute hunters. So my concern is not just their behaviour during Covid-19, but what other excuses will they take advantage of now they've had a taste of the power they can wield against hunting and other activities they don't like.
This is why I admire the foresight of the American constitution and why so many Americans defend it so aggressively.
Governments MUST remain accountable to the citizens otherwise you are in a police state. There may be one or two successful benign dictatorships but I struggle to thing of them
no nz gangs dont need to protest to keep their firearms they have privelages that law abiding people dont
You can bet she bloody did. Those cunters.
Fuked isnt it over step the law and you'll lose you guns and if they want to shut your business down when did that ever happen any gang
Thanks Mikee. Nicely put. I feel people's frustration, but I would and have happily (though sadly if that makes sense) sacrificed a few weeks of hunting and other privileges so that hopefully some people and their loved ones can still be here now. For me also it was never about what the government did and didnt decree and what I could get away with. It was about doing the right thing to help protect us all. Whether we could of hunted or fished during this is of little consequence to me. I agree we probably could have. There were far bigger issues at stake. These were and are very strange times. I think we should all remember the fear and uncertainty at end of March about what our country was going to look like in a couple months. The fact is that things are looking a lot brighter on the health side and we now need to band together and help those around us who are struggling financially. I dont mind admitting that I have taken a huge hit. I don't think anyone would disagree that had we done nothing and ended up like America, that the economy was going to take a drubbing anyway and for a lot longer. Imagine if we can beat it and have the freedom to move around comfortably within our country and re build locally. My heartfelt condolences go out to those of you and your families who have suffered heart break during this time.