tdgeek:

 

Good question. I dunno :-)  But we will find out. End of the day, it needs to be enough detail so that you can be contacted if someone at the store contracted Covid-19. At minimum, First name and phone number/email address. One would hope its not a register book arrangement. Maybe the checkout person takes the details. Except tyre kickers would get missed.  

 

Right. In that case I guess a name (first should be enough) and a phone number. The email address could be a non-essential one (actually, I might make a new one with "covid19" in there somewhere - lol ).

Technofreak:

 

I don't always see eye to eye with Handle 9 but I haven't seen him expressing any extremist views in this thread.

 

Anybody who'd argue to support a thesis that some particular group or individuals should be granted special privileges allowing them to evade laws that apply to everybody else in society on the basis that "they believe in a supreme being" are extremists in my view.  Secularism is a precious thing.

Fred99:

 

Technofreak:

 

I don't always see eye to eye with Handle 9 but I haven't seen him expressing any extremist views in this thread.

 

 

Anybody who'd argue to support a thesis that some particular group or individuals should be granted special privileges allowing them to evade laws that apply to everybody else in society on the basis that "they believe in a supreme being" are extremists in my view.  Secularism is a precious thing.

 

I'm curious where I have asked for special treatment?

I have suggested consistent treatment with restaurants and bars. 

Fred99:

 

Technofreak:

 

I don't always see eye to eye with Handle 9 but I haven't seen him expressing any extremist views in this thread.

 

 

Anybody who'd argue to support a thesis that some particular group or individuals should be granted special privileges allowing them to evade laws that apply to everybody else in society on the basis that "they believe in a supreme being" are extremists in my view.  Secularism is a precious thing.

 

 

 

No one is suggesting special privileges to evade the law. What is being said the law as it is, is incongruent.

Frankly another two weeks doesn't really matter to most people and if it is does it's not worth the fight to make a change.

There is no doubt Brian Tamaki was grandstanding as he is want to do to keep himself in the news. On this occasion I think he had a valid point about how the law was treating different gatherings of people. I don't for one minute agree with his suggestion that he might go ahead with church services this Sunday.

Technofreak:

 

There is no doubt Brian Tamaki was grandstanding as he is want to do to keep himself in the news. On this occasion I think he had a valid point about how the law was treating different gatherings of people. 

 

You still don't get it. Different treatment of different people is not per se wrong. Different treatment of different people in the same situation for no good reason or morally irrelevant/repugnant reasons like race, sex, sexuality, and the like would be objectionable. These concepts are what first year philosophy/applied ethics students pick up on. They really aren't that difficult.

The morally significant point here is (1) whether churchgoers, applying normal human experience, are truly in the same situation of diners who typically don't know other groups of diners and thus are more likely to co-mingle. The government has taken a view that they are not. You can agree or disagree with it -- but it's hard to argue that their reasoning is fundamentally irrational.

Under a common law system of government (this being the same system as that in Australia, UK, Canada, and other Anglo-American jurisdictions), provided a decision-maker's decision is properly empowered by a legitimate legislation, the rule of law/court system holds that the decision-maker's decision is binding and not to be interfered with unless it is (generally speaking) so utterly irrational that no reasonable decision-maker applying the law and diligently turning their mind to the facts could have reached that decision. There are lots of very good reasons for applying such a rule: (1) NZ is a majoritarian representative democracy -- the citizenry does intend to allow decision-makers to act in deciding what is representative of the majority's will/make reasonable judgement as to society's best interest; (2) individuals or individual judges are not always appraised of all relevant facts and information; and (3) it's socially more efficient to default to a position that decisions that appear prima facie legitimate are considered that way until proven otherwise.

You might be saying (when it suits you to appear that way) that you are not supporting Tamaki & Co's threats. But by giving endless primacy to their feelings and views on the irrationality of the justifications for the rule whilst they are threatening to break the law, you're actually empowering lawlessness.

Now if Tamaki's mob could bring themselves to say "Here are our reasons for disagreeing with you decision and we will abide by the law but will [go to the High Court/rally people to vote you out in the upcoming election/insert any other legitimate method of expression of dissatisfaction]", that would be worth respecting. Until then, they are threatening a thug's veto.

 I know kiwis love to find loopholes, but things need to be made clear. The rules are there for a reason.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/beehive-live/121490087/coronavirus-has-winston-peters-found-a-way-around-the-rule-of-10-people-at-funerals

mattwnz:

 

 I know kiwis love to find loopholes, but things need to be made clear. The rules are there for a reason.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/beehive-live/121490087/coronavirus-has-winston-peters-found-a-way-around-the-rule-of-10-people-at-funerals

 

 

 

I can't see a loophole. 10 at the funeral is ok. 100 at a hall or function centre is also ok if it complies with 100, groups of 10 and the three S's. 

Its clear as a bell. Restaurant max 100, groups of 10, exact same thing

tdgeek:

 

mattwnz:

 

 I know kiwis love to find loopholes, but things need to be made clear. The rules are there for a reason.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/beehive-live/121490087/coronavirus-has-winston-peters-found-a-way-around-the-rule-of-10-people-at-funerals

 

 

 

 

I can't see a loophole. 10 at the funeral is ok. 100 at a hall or function centre is also ok if it complies with 100, groups of 10 and the three S's. 

 

Its clear as a bell. Restaurant max 100, groups of 10, exact same thing

 

It's logically inconsistent however it is compliant.

It is the same as 50 people, who are all friends, booking 5 tables at a pub in 5 separate bookings.

IMO it meets the law but not the intent. This will definitely happen under level 2.

kiwiharry: Oops

It's not the first one. The other has "Please 'rememer' to be patient.."

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

 I know kiwis love to find loopholes, but things need to be made clear. The rules are there for a reason.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/beehive-live/121490087/coronavirus-has-winston-peters-found-a-way-around-the-rule-of-10-people-at-funerals

 

I can't see a loophole. 10 at the funeral is ok. 100 at a hall or function centre is also ok if it complies with 100, groups of 10 and the three S's. 

Its clear as a bell. Restaurant max 100, groups of 10, exact same thing

Handle9:

 

It's logically inconsistent however it is compliant.

 

It is the same as 50 people, who are all friends, booking 5 tables at a pub in 5 separate bookings.

 

IMO it meets the law but not the intent. This will definitely happen under level 2.

 

Yep, work do's are the same, many ways to get the employees, teammates, club members together. If a funeral did this, one would hope they accept the intent, that tables are max 10 and won't cross interact. Speeches take care of the social factor. A funeral is 99% for the deceased remembrance than socialising. Yes, we all catch up with long lost relatives, but given a funeral is a more serious occasion than a party of 10 x 10, any funeral that Ive been to would respect that. There is a gulf (pun not intended) between a funeral and a party. 

Ge0rge:

Pretty sure during questioning after the announcement on Monday the PM was specifically asked about this exact situation and answered no, that was not allowed to happen. I remember wondering then how that was going to be policed, but she was quite emphatic that is wasn't allowed.

She was asked about a restaurant compliant gathering after a funeral not being allowed? If so, then that's the answer, as it will off corse be documented in the list of do's and don'ts. Or that any one organisation/function cannot exceed one table. 

tdgeek:

Ge0rge:

Pretty sure during questioning after the announcement on Monday the PM was specifically asked about this exact situation and answered no, that was not allowed to happen. I remember wondering then how that was going to be policed, but she was quite emphatic that is wasn't allowed.

She was asked about a restaurant compliant gathering after a funeral not being allowed? If so, then that's the answer, as it will off corse be documented in the list of do's and don'ts. Or that any one organisation/function cannot exceed one table. 

Ge0rge:

It was along the lines of "can a group book more than one table?" and got a firm No. Although how they would tell left me puzzled - if you and I and 18 of our friends wanted to go out, and I booked one table and you the other...

Would the restaurant step in and ask us to leave if our tables were interacting? The threat to them is closure.

Good point. I guess they would have to send them packing. Depending on the legal wording. What if you organised your 9 and I organised my 9, and when we got there, you and I knew each other, had a chat, 1 metre apart. Non intentional occurrence but the restaurant is now at risk.