coffeebaron: I bit like the Y2K bug, only seems like an overreaction because of all the work that went into preventing it.

Yeah, I do recall a video rental store being in the paper in Jan 2000 complaining their system was completely stuffed up because of it (they obviously didn't pay for upgrades)

coffeebaron: I bit like the Y2K bug, only seems like an overreaction because of all the work that went into preventing it.

From the intarwebs:
“The curve is flattening so we can start lifting restrictions” is like saying “The parachute has slowed our rate of descent so we can take it off now”

snnet:

 

dafman:

 

The paradox of lockdown. The more successful it is, the more it reinforces the skeptics view that it was an over reaction. 

 

 

*plays the freedom isn't free song from team america*

 

* watches Monty Python's Life of Brian: Suicide Squad Scene*

freitasm:

 

Perhaps we don't have a high number of infections and deaths because of this thing you are calling overreaction - and because of this lack of deaths you think it was an overreaction.

 

Agree. An empty ambulance at the bottom of a cliff, does not negate the value of the fence that was built at the top.

Judges decision has come in:  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12327116

Lawsuit has failed.

Judge ruled that they were not subject to detention (because they still retained many of their freedoms)

And then went on to say even if they were subject to detention, that detention would be lawful.

And then went to say the guy under home arrest anyway and will continue to be.

It does seem like this was destined to fail but no matter what its excellent that this man had the opportunity to do this.

We should all be very thankful that we have the ability to challenge things like this with an independent judiciary. We have the ability to question government policy, challenge it and have differing opinions without police turning up at our door with guns to cart us away never to be seen again.

I feel that this is something that is slowly drifting away from us though. With the stories of the spurious police raids with the gun ban, pushing through of the prisoner voting law while parliament is in recess during the lockdown to name just a couple of things.

While yes the lockdown is probably the right strategy (and hindsight will let us know), please don't take for granted these processes.

There are rights, and there is vexatious litigation. This is/was the latter, and a waste of everyone’s time and money.

Zeon:

 

We should all be very thankful that we have the ability to challenge things like this with an independent judiciary. We have the ability to question government policy, challenge it and have differing opinions without police turning up at our door with guns to cart us away never to be seen again.

 

This is what makes NZ great and different to other countries. We can challenge anybody, and it does not matter who they are. Its the same in the workplace here in NZ compared to other countries. Try working or living in the Far East or anywhere really in Asia and you will quickly appreciate the difference.  We get to call out people like Simon Bridges and even the PM herself when we feel they not living up to our standards. We need to appreciate it.

NumPy:

 

Zeon:

 

We should all be very thankful that we have the ability to challenge things like this with an independent judiciary. We have the ability to question government policy, challenge it and have differing opinions without police turning up at our door with guns to cart us away never to be seen again.

 

 

This is what makes NZ great and different to other countries. We can challenge anybody, and it does not matter who they are. Its the same in the workplace here in NZ compared to other countries. Try working or living in the Far East or anywhere really in Asia and you will quickly appreciate the difference.  We get to call out people like Simon Bridges and even the PM herself when we feel they not living up to our standards. We need to appreciate it.

 

 

 

You two appear to be defending this as a legitimate “calling out” of the Prime Minister’s decision to execute the Level 4 lockdown. Personally I am appalled that this action could be considered as anything other than time-wasting grandstanding - Ms Ardern has better things to do than deal with this sort of thing.

Having the right to do a thing includes the responsibility to execute your right in a responsible way.

BlinkyBill:

 

Having the right to do a thing includes the responsibility to execute your right in a responsible way.

 

So who gets to define the responsible way? I guess you missed my point completely, the only thing I am defending are our rights, and the right to call out somebody. It does not matter if they wrong or right, or who they are. It makes NZ great and that's how things should stay, its called freedom.

The silver lining of this time-wasting is that the judge laid it out very clearly and succinctly. Enough that even a layperson can understand the arguments. To summarise: the complaint raise two issues. Firstly, is the complainant - and by extension the rest of NZ - being detained as a matter of law? And second, if so, is that detention lawful?

Several cases are cited to show what it means under NZ law to be detained including the restrictions imposed in each case. Then the judge concludes by answering that given that you are allowed to leave your house whenever you want, go to the supermarket or the doctor whenever you want, talk to anyone you want, and use any communications service including the internet whenever and however you want, without any sort of monitoring in place, you are not, in fact, being detained.

Then the judge examines the power of Director General to order lockdown citing the section of the act that authorises it, noting that it can be invoked either under a state of emergency or under an epidemic notice. In fact, both are currently in force and therefore the order is lawful.

A couple of side issues are also considered - does 'persons' mean 'everyone in NZ'? Answer - in the context of the wide powers granted under the act, the word 'persons' is clearly meant to be interpreted as encompassing 'all of New Zealand' if the medical officer deems it necessary. The complainant also wants their name suppressed because they will get death threats (no evidence this is true, not granting permanent suppression). And finally one leg of their argument is inappropriate to be heard under the Habeas Corpus Act and is referred to the court of appeals (who do not necessarily have to agree to hear it).

So in summary, the decision is: Are we being detained? (No). If we are being detained, would it be legal anyway? (Yes).

The thing that bugged me mostly about the complainant in this case, is that it was blatantly political.

Accusing the Prime Minister, rather than the Director General of Health for enacting the lockdown, running foul of "Godwin's law', and stating that it was "all for her political gain"

I applaud anybody who stands up to defend our rights - and like others have posted, appreciate that we live in a country which allows us to do so freely.

But in my opinion this wasn't really about defending human rights.  It was more for "political gain" - the very thing the Prime Minister was being accused of.

If they had kept it about our rights, I would have more sympathy for them.  Instead they were presented in the media as a rabid anti-Ardern sheep who are not worth listening to.

NumPy:

 

BlinkyBill:

 

Having the right to do a thing includes the responsibility to execute your right in a responsible way.

 

 

So who gets to define the responsible way? I guess you missed my point completely, the only thing I am defending are our rights, and the right to call out somebody. It does not matter if they wrong or right, or who they are. It makes NZ great and that's how things should stay, its called freedom.

 

I got your point, and Zeon’s. You may have missed my point, which is this: the right to hold someone to account needs to be pursued for the right reason, and not for any reason. Just because I am offended about something, or disagree with something, that doesn’t mean I can tie up resources litigating that something, willy-nilly.

It is reasonable to litigate something if, for example it is illegal, or is unreasonable, or injurious. But that litigation should and can only be taken in genuine circumstances. It is not reasonable for any dickhead to take any action for any reason they feel like.

These dickheads are there, and there are people in NZ have been Declared by the courts as vexatious litigants and are precluded from taking actions because they do so unreasonably.

Answer this question - should the Prime Minister have to be distracted, in this precise case at this time, for the reasons given by the litigants?