Guys and Girls, please, treasure your freedoms. In New Zealand, we don't have a Fourth Amendment, nor a Constitution. Instead, we have what is known as "Parliamentary Sovereignty", where Parliament is supreme. What it says, goes.
Yes, we have a Supreme Court, but they are not empowered to strike down laws like yours, due to the above. In the Bill linked below, police can enter our houses without warrant. Ordinarily, they would need one, save for a crime in progress. Not now, they don't.
Section 20 of this Bill is what authorises police to enter our homes without Warrant.
(It's to ensure people are complying with quarantine orders for COVID-19), however in this case, police now only need probable cause a breach has occurred to enter).
Subsection (2) says (1) doesn't apply, but (3) effectively nullifies that.
And the worst bit? This applies for the next two years, even if COVID-19 subsides or disappears. It is also being passed under "urgency", meaning that instead of having Select Committees to consider public feedback, and add/remove sections of the law based on that, along with the three separate votes (or "readings"), all three votes, without those Committees, will happen today. In fact, as I write this, they probably are.
St. Thomas of Aquinas spork of a "shining city on the hill". You are that shining city. You have no idea how wistfully envious I am of your freedoms, and Constitution. Treasure them, and treasure them well. Perhaps one day, that city's gates may open to me.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2020/0246/latest/whole.html?fbclid=IwAR2DgcJxGikzIGj3Nahg3TuK3926r3RBEHgTq-2MhtvQ37CXiJc85f42AO8#LMS344191
Guys and Girls, please, treasure your freedoms. In New Zealand, we don't have a Fourth Amendment, nor a Constitution. Instead, we have what is known as "Parliamentary Sovereignty", where Parliament is supreme. What it says, goes.
Yes, we have a Supreme Court, but they are not empowered to strike down laws like yours, due to the above. In the Bill linked below, police can enter our houses without warrant. Ordinarily, they would need one, save for a crime in progress. Not now, they don't.
Section 20 of this Bill is what authorises police to enter our homes without Warrant.
(It's to ensure people are complying with quarantine orders for COVID-19), however in this case, police now only need probable cause a breach has occurred to enter).
Subsection (2) says (1) doesn't apply, but (3) effectively nullifies that.
And the worst bit? This applies for the next ***two years***, ***even if*** COVID-19 subsides or disappears. It is also being passed under "urgency", meaning that instead of having Select Committees to consider public feedback, and add/remove sections of the law based on that, along with the three separate votes (or "readings"), all three votes, ***without*** those Committees, will happen today. In fact, as I write this, they probably are.
St. Thomas of Aquinas spork of a "shining city on the hill". You are that shining city. You have no idea how wistfully envious I am of your freedoms, and Constitution. Treasure them, and treasure them well. Perhaps one day, that city's gates may open to me.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing" - *Edmund Burke*
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2020/0246/latest/whole.html?fbclid=IwAR2DgcJxGikzIGj3Nahg3TuK3926r3RBEHgTq-2MhtvQ37CXiJc85f42AO8#LMS344191
We are fortunate to have a Constitution, but even here our inalienable rights are being violated in the name of public safety.
Whether here, NZ, or anywhere else in the world, a government that seeks "temporary" powers is unlikely to cede that power once a crisis ends. Even if they do, they have set a precedence where they can play the "state of emergency" card at any time.
We are experiencing a peaceful revolution which is growing every day. People are refusing to obey arbitrary rules. Perhaps you Kiwis should do the same.
Thanks for the info, BTW. From everything I've read, I thought NZ was taking a rational approach.
Cheers.
Oh, believe me, we are.
We have four levels of alert for COVID-19, with "4" being a total lockdown (essential services such as supermarkets and drugstores + doctor's surgeries+ gas stations) open only. You can only travel for essential purposes and must stay home otherwise.
We're currently at Level 3, moving to Level 2 on Thursday (most shops open etc). People have already had enough - we're happy to do our "bit", but not when you start overreaching. Hence lots more cars on the road, people in public places (McDonalds, etc).
We have an "Epidemic Response Committee" chaired by our version of Republicans, and the head of that Committee is a former Crown (federal) prosecutor. If you're subpoenaed to appear, you appear, which is good.
This guy takes no crap, I can assure. But of course, our MSM loves Jacinda (analogue of Hillary), and any other Leftie. If you're conservative, they don't give you the time of day.
The AG tried to hide the legal advice given to him by Crown Law (an independent body that advises Ministers on the legal aspects/implications of decisions), on the legality of the lockdown. As far as I recall, he was subpoenaed.
Parliament is currently not sitting, so this Committee has very large counterbalancing powers to make up for it.
The Prime Minister's office also gagged Ministers (banning them from taking questions/interviews on them. Her advice was basically "because the people love us so much, and are behind us, we don't need to answer any questions, and can dismiss them." That did not go down well, at all.
I'm no doctor, but allowing law enforcement to enter your home without a warrant while your neighbors are co-mingling at the supermarket makes no sense to me. "Level 4" is total lock-down, except for essential service proveders and anyone who wants to buy a pie? It simply defies logic.
,We are in the same boat, until it comes to warrantless entries by police. I can only suppose that your government overreach was a much easier decision after disarming the people of NZ.
Hang in there, and thanks for the education.
You're welcome.
The gun-grab pissed off a lot of people, as the Select Committee only had views that supported the Government's aims. The legislation was rushed through a week after March 15th, and there was a lot of noise about how due process (as explained previously) was violated. Rural folk haven't forgotten, and are still very angry about this, as if you're a responsible firearms owner, why should you be criminalised?(Which is effectively what happened).
Oh, and our MSM got a $50mn bailout, so of course, they will be extra nice to their masters in the Beehive (our name for our Legislature, the House of Representatives, it looks like one).
I am hoping that someone puts in jail the kingpins that did this and other people indicate where the rats are running.
Oh, trust me, there are lots of people angry here over this. I take it you read the section I mentioned?
WOOOOOOO you guys are fucking screwed. That document is a commie hellscape. It doesn't format super well when I paste the relevant bits, and I'm not going to try. Here is the bit OP is talking about, "Section 20":
20 Powers of entry
(1) An enforcement officer may enter, without a warrant, any land, building, craft, vehicle, place, or thing if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is failing to comply with any aspect of a section 11 order.
(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply to a private dwellinghouse or marae.
(3) A constable may enter a private dwellinghouse or marae without warrant only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered there in contravention of a section 11 order and entry is necessary for the purpose of giving a direction under section 21.
(4) A constable exercising a power of entry under this section may use reasonable force in order to effect entry into or onto the land, building, craft, vehicle, place, or thing if, following a request, a person present refuses entry or does not allow entry within a reasonable time.
(5) Any constable who exercises a warrantless entry power under this section must provide a written report on the exercise of that power to the Commissioner or a Police employee designated to receive reports of that kind by the Commissioner, as soon as practicable after exercising the power.
(6) Any enforcement officer (other than a constable) who exercises a warrantless entry power under this section must provide a written report on the exercise of that power to the Director-General, or an employee designated to receive reports of that kind by the Director-General, as soon as practicable after exercising the power.
(7) A report referred to in subsection (5) or (6) must contain—
(a) a short summary of the circumstances surrounding the exercise of the power, and the reason or reasons why the power needed to be exercised; and
(b) a description of any other action undertaken.
So, that section 20 references the section 11 for definitions of what constitutes "reasonable grounds" to enter your private property... It's basically everything:
11 Orders that can be made under this Act
(1) An order made by the Minister or the Director-General (as the case may be) under this section may do 1 or more of the following things:
(a) require persons to refrain from taking any actions that contribute or are likely to contribute to the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19, or require persons to take any actions, or comply with any measures, that contribute or are likely to contribute to preventing the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19, including (without limitation) requiring persons to do any of the following:
(i) stay in any specified place or refrain from going to any specified place:
(ii)refrain from associating with specified persons:
(iii) stay physically distant from any persons in any specified way:
(iv) refrain from travelling to or from any specified area:
(v) refrain from carrying out specified activities (for example, business activities involving close personal contact) or require specified activities to be carried out only in any specified way or in compliance with specified measures:
(vi) be isolated or quarantined in any specified place or in any specified way:
(vii) refrain from participating in gatherings of any specified kind, in any specified place, or in specified circumstances:
(viii) report for medical examination or testing in any specified way or in any specified circumstances:
(b) in relation to any places, premises, crafts, vehicles, animals, or other things, require actions to be taken, require compliance with any measures, or impose prohibitions that contribute or are likely to contribute to preventing the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19, including (without limitation) any of the following:
(i) require things to be closed or only open if specified measures are complied with:
(ii) prohibit things from entering any port or place, or permit the entry of things into any port or place only if specified measures are complied with:
(iii) prohibit gatherings of any specified kind in any specified places or premises, or in any specified circumstances:
(iv) require things to be isolated, quarantined, or disinfected in any specified way or specified circumstances:
(v) require the testing of things in any specified way or specified circumstances.
(2) An order made by the Minister may specify which breaches of an order made by the Minister or the Director-General are infringement offences for the purposes of section 25(3).
It won't be long before the cattle cars arrive to take the people to safety.
You might have to start having "safe rooms" in your house, especially if you have children to hide from the child snatchers.
I have no kids, so am all good there :)
Maybe one day you all can rise up and claim your rights!
There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.
NZ has only 4.6 million people, so if enough conservative Americans and Englishmen were able to secure NZ citizenship we could flip that country and have them create a proper constitution.
There is one good thing - no more birthright citizenship! (since January 1st, 2006). You need to be a New Zealand citizen, or a permanent resident to pass citizenship on, being born here is no longer enough in itself.
Ireland got rid of their birth right citizenship in 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland. Time to press something similar in the U.S., but it will have to be through a convention of the states, it won't get 2/3 in Congress.
How goes it fellow kiwi, this is awesome to hear from another kiwi pede.
Yeah fucken Jacinda ramming this through is horrible. I was on r/NewZealand yesterday reading how many people were in favour of it. Anyone who was against it was slaughtered in the comments.
Police can break up and disperse people at funerals/tangi and to me this is just unacceptable.
Simon Power wrote stated a reasonable rebuttal when questioned by the media and I quoted it on r/nz and got banned.
Welcome to 1984 NZ style.
Of course it is, and I'm not surprised, to be honest.
They'll only start believing until this happens to them.
No words.
Try /r/conservativekiwi, they'll be more than happy to have you :)
Didn't you folks elect a transgendered DJ as prime minister?
I guess your fellow subjects wanted to try and one up Canada for the biggest joke of a leader.
Uh, no? Where'd you get that from?
She wasn't actually elected by us, the opposition party, the National Party had the biggest share of the "party" votes - who you want to form the Government, but a politician by the name of Winston Peters chose the Labour (socialist) party, who cobbled together a coalition involving his party (New Zealand First, Labour and the Greens, enviro-communists), and so formed the Government (we use something known as "MMP").
She's got big balls.
PM in da house! How Jacinda Ardern went from festival DJ mixing beats to the world's youngest female leader at age 37
Bro. Everyone here in Australia fucking worships your prime minister like the sun shines out of her asshole. People are always saying "I wish she ran our country too", "shes the beast leader in the world today"
FUCK...THAT...SHIT
Trust me, it doesn't.
You know something? Our Immigration Minister granted permanent residency to a convicted drug smuggler after only ten minutes reading his file. You see, if needs be, an appeal can be made to the Minister above the bureaucrats (who handle the vast majority of decisions), as a safety valve.
Now, these bureaucrats do their jobs very effectively, and without fear or favour, so each file has comprehensive evidence and analysis for the Minister to make their decision on (it is always done in such a way that you've the key points, and a recommendation, but for safety reasons, the decision is always the Minister's in this case. After all, the bureaucrats do get it wrong from time to time).
They said "no", in this case, for rather obvious reasons. He overruled their decision.
Cue public outcry. It was revoked, but did the PM sack him? No. She should have, but had no-one to replace him with. Same with our Health Minister.
Now, either of our previous Prime Ministers would have sacked Ministers for something like that (and far less, too). And all Ministers knew that, it was never hidden as a potential sanction, should you screw up severely enough.
She's a weakling, and I have no time for her. The worst part? She's my MP.
God help us.
Can Pede here: My Aussie friend, you and I both live in what is know as a "Federal Parliamentary Republic MONARCHY". Our forefathers never fought a war of independence. We never gained our "freedoms" of which you speak, so we can never lose them. "We don't call the rights, we call them privileges" Justin Trudeau
Nice to see someone flying the Maple. You've mis-stepped slightly, I'm a New Zealander, not an Australian. :) I just live in a Constitutional Monarchy. I'm not all fancy like you two, but I certainly wouldn't mind federalism. (On that note, why haven't Americans called it "federalizm"?).
Well then, someone should take M. Trudeau's "privileges" off him. Bet he won't be calling them "privileges" then...
I was kidding about the Trudeau quote because of the "peoplekind" retardation.
dude. start blastin. that's how we got our shit.
i'm not kidding. violence has not been removed from our evolutionary vocabulary just yet. it speaks volumes. over here the irish, the italians- they were all dogshit. but they started swingin and didnt stop until they got respect.
we're still animals. act accordingly.
This is a Democrat dream come true.
Dang. Too bad you guys let them take your guns over that obvious hoax, too. Stay safe!
This doesn't surprise me. Didn't your government not only outlaw a bunch of guns following that shooting, but afterwards make it illegal to view or share the shooter's manifesto? Imagine outlawing Mein Kampf or any other work which will potentially help you to not only understand why a specific event occurred, but history in general.
As I recall, your Prime Minister also wore a muslim face mask (as I like to call it) to apologize to the poor goat fuckers. At this point it's up to Kiwis to take your country back, unless you want to end up like Sweden. Europe is already turning into a muslim state.
Not exactly. The Chief Censor (yes, yes, I know) can designate something as "objectionable", meaning it is illegal to view, send, or show to others. However, the Chief Censor is actually concerned with classifying films, games and so on (i.e. so you can show a film in theatres. For example, you have R18, which means only those legally 18 or above can view the film, same with games). You'd be looking for the Films, Video and Literature Classification Act 1993.
The power to classify something as "objectionable", has, as far as I know, only been used twice: Once on a book (that was rescinded), and the above.
As far as I recall, the video was censored first for obvious reasons (and to be fair, who wants to watch innocents be murdered like that? I don't.) Then, the manifesto was, due to "white supremacy". Ironically, if they had read the damn thing (I haven't, and don't wish to), they would have seen that he didn't consider himself as such.
Yes, she did, and I couldn't believe how that looked. I thought it very insincere of her, and not genuine. That said, on the first anniversary this year, she wanted to hold a photo-op, to look kind and benevolent, and they said "No, sorry, that's not in our belief system". (Fair enough, I wouldn't want to be used by politicians either). Only once her March photo fest was turned down, did she implement the lockdown.
As after all, politely asking people to self-isolate doesn't do anything, you need to enforce it.
Due to cultural differences, you won't see an armed uprising. What you would see, is a massive electoral smackdown, and protests. We had a law twelve years ago, called the Electoral Finance Act. Essentially, the Government in power had unlimited funding, while every other party could only use $100,000.
Further, any topic discussed during the pre-election period of 90 days before the election, by a politician, was considered to be campaigning. So, if you and I were talking (totally innocently) about battery cage farming, then we would have needed to register as electoral agents.
In the end, that Government was voted out massively, with front-page editorials and protests up and down the country. They basically had "third-termitis", which is where a Government, after three terms, usually becomes aloof, high-handed and arrogant. (One term in NZ is three years in length). That, and the socialists were shit-scared of losing, they were up against a multi-millionaire that grew up in real poverty, and made his fortune the hard way (his name is John Key, go read up on him, if you have the time).
Excuse the essay, but I thought it was important to explain that last point :)