Thread: We could have been hunting under level 4 afterall

Originally Posted by Tahr

You speak from a perspective that the Gov have actually acted outside of the law. That is only conjecture to support a subjective argument. What you claim will only gain real legitimacy when the court rules in the favour of your argument, and then accountability should flow from that.

@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..

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

@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?.............

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.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Like I said. Both views are legitimately held and the Court is about to decide. 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.

In all of this, there's the court, and the court of public opinion.

A judgement will be rendered by each. The court of public opinion is a messy beast, but not always wrong....

Originally Posted by Sidney

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 example



As is every discussion about anything almost ever......Probably mostly from fringe media, typically not exactly the mainstream Jacinda cheerleaders.....



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.



And if nobody talks about this stuff before it gets to court... then it won't get to court.

Its validating when you agree on every point, Sydney.

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

In all of this, there's the court, and the court of public opinion.

A judgement will be rendered by each. The court of public opinion is a messy beast, but not always wrong....

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.

Originally Posted by Tahr

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.

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...

Originally Posted by GravelBen

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.

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

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.

I would say Holyoake's Gov.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

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...

That's the end of good governance, as I understand it.

Originally Posted by possum_shooter

Ffs there are some people on here who felt they have been fucken robbed or something. What a pack of self centred wa****ers. I think the government did very well in these new and challenging times. Did they get very decision right?

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.

Originally Posted by Mauser308

How about Churchill taking over during wartime, and resurrecting the English people's morale and holding it together during direct attack? That, was leadership - but I do believe after the event left a little to be desired.

This is an interesting point about an elected democracy in a fast-changing environment - the leader at one point may not be the leader you need at another. It's a huge limitation inherent in the 'elected democratic representative' system in my opinion, and I think the evidence speaks for itself in New Zealand at the moment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I have no particular care for any action that's taken provided the reason for it is explained and the reason is valid and lawful. What happened and has happened here in NZ several times now is that actions have been taken, the reasons withheld in favour of spurious and fluffy "justification" and the lawful basis for these actions is either murky, questionable or downright dodgy. If it isn't pulled up in short order we will be literally back to 1939 and we know how that ended up. Get the sleeves inked now and make it difficult to get the serial number fitted up...

Nicely put

Originally Posted by Sidney

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.

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.

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