Jacinda Ardern sued over lockdown

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern sued over lockdown

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 18

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2479175 8-May-2020 11:35

mdooher:

I believe in a democracy the state must act lawfully in all things. If they do not, then by definition it is not a democracy. I want to live in a democracy and warts and all. If that makes me ignorant ...ok

It absolutely should. But it should also allow for the possibility that it isn't omniscient, and provide the latitude for the people in charge to swiftly do what must be done to keep that democracy safe. Rules exist for a reason. But smart and responsible people know when those rules are not appropriate.

It's fine for us to come back now and wonder how we might improve the framework. It's not fine to say that there was a loophole and therefore we should put them all in jail, undo everything and start again.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Ge0rge

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2060

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479176 8-May-2020 11:37

Rikkitic:
So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules.

So you run a stop sign, cause hey - your friends life is important right? In the process you T-bone a family sedan, instantly killing mum in the passenger seat, critically injuring dad driving, and - by pure luck, because they normally sit on mum's side, trapping with minor injury the daughter behind dad. Your friend dies anyway.

We have rules for a reason. Government has proven they can sit a short notice and change those that need to be changed.

Nb - the above scenario is not made up. I was riding a volunteer fire appliance to the exact call above and was part of a crew trying to extract the father and daughter, who was screaming the whole time for her dead mother. All because someone decided the rules didn't apply to them.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#2479179 8-May-2020 11:40

mdooher:

I believe in a democracy the state must act lawfully in all things. If they do not, then by definition it is not a democracy. I want to live in a democracy and warts and all. If that makes me ignorant ...ok

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes" - Obi-Wan Kenobi.

By which I mean your statement above precludes LITERALLY any situation where there would be justification for the state acting unlawfully. There are clearly such situations imaginable - whether the Covid-19 situation would qualify is something only history will tell us. But the fact that situations like that COULD exist means your statement is ignorant.

There are clearly all sorts of situations where clearly the right thing to do is not lawful.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41071

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2479180 8-May-2020 11:41

So, let's say we wait for the High Court to tell us what they think, then we discuss it?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2479181 8-May-2020 11:42

Ge0rge:
Rikkitic:

So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules.

So you run a stop sign, cause hey - your friends life is important right? In the process you T-bone a family sedan, instantly killing mum in the passenger seat, critically injuring dad driving, and - by pure luck, because they normally sit on mum's side, trapping with minor injury the daughter behind dad. Your friend dies anyway.

We have rules for a reason. Government has proven they can sit a short notice and change those that need to be changed.

Nb - the above scenario is not made up. I was riding a volunteer fire appliance to the exact call above and was part of a crew trying to extract the father and daughter, who was screaming the whole time for her dead mother. All because someone decided the rules didn't apply to them.

It's the opposite situation. Speeding is a choice between "Break the clearly defined rule and probably nobody dies" vs. "Somebody definitely dies". This is: "It's not even clear I'm breaking any rules, people are going to die regardless, but this way far fewer do."

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#2479182 8-May-2020 11:44

Ge0rge:
Rikkitic:

So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules.

So you run a stop sign, cause hey - your friends life is important right? In the process you T-bone a family sedan, instantly killing mum in the passenger seat, critically injuring dad driving, and - by pure luck, because they normally sit on mum's side, trapping with minor injury the daughter behind dad. Your friend dies anyway.

We have rules for a reason. Government has proven they can sit a short notice and change those that need to be changed.

Nb - the above scenario is not made up. I was riding a volunteer fire appliance to the exact call above and was part of a crew trying to extract the father and daughter, who was screaming the whole time for her dead mother. All because someone decided the rules didn't apply to them.

And that's a tragic example.

However what if the same situation played out 99 more times and the accident didn't occur? They got to hospital in time and their life was saved.

If examples rely on a single point, or on the exception behaviour to prove their point, then they are appeals to emotion, not logic or reason.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2479184 8-May-2020 11:49

Talkiet:

However what if the same situation played out 99 more times and the accident didn't occur? They got to hospital in time and their life was saved.

Such as, for example, being in a volunteer fire appliance called out to the scene of a tragic accident where people were trapped in the wreckage...

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2479185 8-May-2020 11:51

Ge0rge:
Rikkitic:

So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules.

So you run a stop sign, cause hey - your friends life is important right? In the process you T-bone a family sedan, instantly killing mum in the passenger seat, critically injuring dad driving, and - by pure luck, because they normally sit on mum's side, trapping with minor injury the daughter behind dad. Your friend dies anyway.

We have rules for a reason. Government has proven they can sit a short notice and change those that need to be changed.

Nb - the above scenario is not made up. I was riding a volunteer fire appliance to the exact call above and was part of a crew trying to extract the father and daughter, who was screaming the whole time for her dead mother. All because someone decided the rules didn't apply to them.

The example you use should not be trivialised. That is an absolute tragedy. But I think your use of it is a little unfair. It is an extreme situation. What I actually had in my mind is the many red lights I stop for in the evening when there is no traffic at all in my town. I am never tempted to run a red light in these circumstances. I do believe in following the rules and I am never in that much of a hurry. But there are many situations where you truly do have a full and clear view and jumping the light would not be dangerous if other exceptional circumstances warranted it. In any case, this was just used as an example. There are better ones. What about the original speeding one? If it is safe to do 100 on a straight four-lane expressway with no traffic, it is probably just as safe to do 111. There are many variables involved in a choice like this.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479215 8-May-2020 12:51

snnet:
Article here

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12325702

Silly?

"The man objected to Justice Peters' question to substitute Ardern for Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield, who enacted the lockdown order."

Axe to grind methinks

So going back to the original guy... Is he going to get his day on court? I heard his case was thrown out.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2479216 8-May-2020 12:51

Rikkitic:
Geektastic:

If you accept the precedent that it is OK for governments to act illegally and to lie to their electors where they deem it to be in the public good, then you are on a slippery slope to a bad place. Who knows what they might decide to lie about 'in the public good' next time? Or the time after that? What happens if it is something you do not actually think is in the public good but is in fact in your view directly contrary to the public good?

So I stop for every red light and my friend dies in my car, though he would have made it if I was a little less obsessed with following the rules. Government says we have to jump through these legal hoops so they just let the virus spread like wildfire until the Select Committees have all had their say. Thousands die but hoopty-hoo, bureaucracy has won the day!

I think that the government is in a different position from an individual. Firstly, it is within their power to change the law. Secondly, there are already legal mechanisms to extend their powers in times of threat. NB that they don't have to wait for Select Committees. They can pass legislation under urgency. That is the whole point of urgency (rather than to avoid debate on MP's salary increases).

So, you as an individual have to make the decision to break the law and save your friend's life. The government instead allows ambulances to drive through red lights and exceed the speed limit.

NB also that intentionally breaking the law is accepted as part of a democracy, in the sense of protest actions.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479270 8-May-2020 14:35

mdooher: I believe in a democracy the state must act lawfully in all things. If they do not, then by definition it is not a democracy. I want to live in a democracy and warts and all. If that makes me ignorant ...ok

Your preference is you WOULD rather people die, it's just you can't say it honestly which is disappointing.

The problem is with a number of folks here the way I interpret is that they would have preferred more death as then they could have blamed the govt for not responding sooner. And because it us under control they have pivoted to open the country up as I can't accept the overreach.

The simple reality is we just need to look overseas and see the death rates, and that could VERY EASILY have been NZ had the Government not taken decisive actions. If some laws weren't updated to reflect it meh, I am ok with that as they have done what needed to be done to save a lot of lives. The government moved quickly to have this panel where the Opposition can opine on what they would have done differently. They are in easy position that they can say whatever they want as the buck never stopped with them.

I see very little difference with a few of the posters here complaining about government overreach and the protesters in the US demanding the guvvimint reopen the country.

The only way we will know the truth is 2+ years down the track when stats reports all the deaths. Until then lets just listen to science and the medical professionals.

And I hope you have your DNR updated and prepared to offer up your whole family as tribute to the great god of our economy.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479273 8-May-2020 14:51

There are four aspects here.

The first is practical. It was clear what needed to be done as a result of COVID19. I have absolutely no problem with what was done with the lock down. It has been successful and was necessary.

The second is legislative. If the government didn't have the powers needed they could have gotten them very quickly. Parliament could and did pass legislation incredibly quickly to give the government whatever powers are required.

The third is the rule of law. This is incredibly important and not negotiable. As above the government can very quickly give itself broad powers and make them retrospective.

The fourth is transparency. Refusing to release the crown law option stinks. It strongly suggests that there is something very wrong going on.

It's an unprecedented crisis but if there has been a broad abuse of powers then there needs to be a royal commission. I'd suggest there should be one on the COVID 19 crisis anyway but this needs independent and impartial review. Not now but once the dust settles.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2479277 8-May-2020 15:11

Handle9: There are four aspects here.

The first is practical. It was clear what needed to be done as a result of COVID19. I have absolutely no problem with what was done with the lock down. It has been successful and was necessary.

The second is legislative. If the government didn't have the powers needed they could have gotten them very quickly. Parliament could and did pass legislation incredibly quickly to give the government whatever powers are required.

The third is the rule of law. This is incredibly important and not negotiable. As above the government can very quickly give itself broad powers and make them retrospective.

The fourth is transparency. Refusing to release the crown law option stinks. It strongly suggests that there is something very wrong going on.

It's an unprecedented crisis but if there has been a broad abuse of powers then there needs to be a royal commission. I'd suggest there should be one on the COVID 19 crisis anyway but this needs independent and impartial review. Not now but once the dust settles.

Great summary.

I don't have problem with the steps taken, in fact I think they should have been taken earlier.

However, transparency is important, especially when freedoms that are on place due to statute or custom have been suspended. If there was a risk to public obedience and therefore health of releasing the crown law advice, that risk has all but passed now.

Mike

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2479288 8-May-2020 15:30

MikeAqua:

However, transparency is important, especially when freedoms that are on place due to statute or custom have been suspended. If there was a risk to public obedience and therefore health of releasing the crown law advice, that risk has all but passed now.

Which is why the government created a special committee explicitly to oversee the government's handling of the situation, gave it practically unlimited powers to call anyone it wanted, gave the opposition 2/3rds of the membership, put Simon Bridges in charge of it, and live streamed it every day. How much more transparent could they realistically be?

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 910

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479289 8-May-2020 15:34

Handle9:
The third is the rule of law. This is incredibly important and not negotiable. As above the government can very quickly give itself broad powers and make them retrospective.

As a normal principle, retrospective laws should not be made (yes they have done it to get themselves out of trouble for election shenanigans, but nobody had the money, time or cared enough to stop them)

It will be much more difficult in this case because any change could relate to matters that are the subject of prospective court decisions or current litigation. They will need to ensure they don't adversely effect the person bringing the case.

Should be interesting anyway.

Matthew

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 18