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.

In hindsight, correct. I should have held my tongue, so to speak.

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?.............

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 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...

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?

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by mikee

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.

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.

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..

Consider it validation then young man...

But it probably was adding a little more complexity which may have needed to be considered..??

Originally Posted by Hewie

Attachment 139044

I take my hat off to them. Standing up for their rights.
Mind you that pic could well be of our nz gangs

no nz gangs dont need to protest to keep their firearms they have privelages that law abiding people dont

Originally Posted by northdude

no nz gangs dont need to protest to keep their firearms they have privelages that law abiding people dont

I can't like that, even though it is utterly true