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 | ... | 18

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2479053 8-May-2020 09:21

I'm not a fan of most Labour policies, and not a fan of Jacinda in general, but her and the govt handling of this situation has been decisive and with the benefit of comparison to overseas situations it has been successful so far.

Suggesting that you would want them to do the LEGAL thing INSTEAD OF the RIGHT thing indicates you truly don't understand the unprecedented nature of the situation.

Would you rather stick to 100kmh on the open road if you were transporting a critically injured friend to hospital? Would you break a law to save a life?

Get off your high horse, accept these are unprecedented times requiring unprecedented actions, and that some of those require decisive leadership without the benefit of oversight from the 'pre-times'.

Your attitude sounds like the people in the US protesting that they have had to stay at home too long and want their hairdressers to re-open NOW!

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.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8111 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2479055 8-May-2020 09:25

Geektastic:

Nevertheless it does prove that perhaps taking the mick out of the people who attempted to use the courts to prove a point might have been less well judged than it at first seemed.

There are definite differences between the two reviews. The first one cannot reasonably be construed in any other way than some d***head being a d***head just because he could - he was under home detention, he wasn't going anywhere even before lockdown! - and clearly did not have any genuine interest in matters of law or public confidence.

This one is a serious attempt to clarify what powers can really be used in an emergency, and who has the authority to wield them. This one I don't have a problem with: there will undoubtedly be some weaknesses in the underpinnings that need to be corrected. We need to ensure that some future government can't use them maliciously while still ensuring it remains possible to use them expeditiously in the case of another real crisis. That's always going to be a difficult line to walk.

But do I think anyone who was prosecuted "wrongly" deserves any compensation? No, I don't. The intent of the lockdown was clear, the very vast majority of the population agrees with it, and worst case scenario the legislation is going to be changed so that it would have been lawful anyway. Maybe an apology from the government at best. Certainly no get-out-of-jail-free cards.

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

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

Bung

6357 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2479058 8-May-2020 09:31

It's fine for Prof Geddis to be a sceptic now in March he was giving the impression that the state of emergency had it covered.

March 25 RNZ "In comment provided by the Science Media Centre, Professor Andrew Geddis from University of Otago, said:

"With the declaration of a state of emergency and issue of an epidemic notice, New Zealand's government has taken on powers that haven't been seen since the 1951 Waterfront dispute.

"The police (and the army, if needed to support the police) are empowered to order any person to stop any activity that contributes to the current emergency - essentially, spreading Covid-19 in the community. Government ministers may set aside virtually any legislative provision that becomes impracticable to apply while the epidemic is in force.

"These give the state extraordinary reach into our lives, and transfer extraordinary power to the executive branch. They are a marker of just how severe the threat that this virus poses to us all.""

Edit: home detention isn't total lockdown. Locally I've heard of one home detainee that hadn't realised that the current situation meant that he had less freedom of movement than his sentence provisions.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79039 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2479066 8-May-2020 09:52

Talkiet:

I'm not a fan of most Labour policies, and not a fan of Jacinda in general, but her and the govt handling of this situation has been decisive and with the benefit of comparison to overseas situations it has been successful so far.

Suggesting that you would want them to do the LEGAL thing INSTEAD OF the RIGHT thing indicates you truly don't understand the unprecedented nature of the situation.

Would you rather stick to 100kmh on the open road if you were transporting a critically injured friend to hospital? Would you break a law to save a life?

Get off your high horse, accept these are unprecedented times requiring unprecedented actions, and that some of those require decisive leadership without the benefit of oversight from the 'pre-times'.

Your attitude sounds like the people in the US protesting that they have had to stay at home too long and want their hairdressers to re-open NOW!

Cheers - N

QFT.

Now that we are passing through the storm without having hospitals flooded with patients, hundreds of deaths people complain.

Like in America, people taken arms to "open the state" then seeing the rate of contamination and death going up again.

You can't have both folks. Some people now make it look like the PM has attempted a coup and moved our country more to the left than North Korea.

Anything for a political score.

My technology disclosure

Oblivian

7276 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2479073 8-May-2020 10:16

Hope I'm not the high horse rider in the last few replies as a result of referencing the words :) just trying to work out why the legal questioning is even a thing like everyone else.

I'm a complier! And love that it worked.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479075 8-May-2020 10:18

Talkiet:

I'm not a fan of most Labour policies, and not a fan of Jacinda in general, but her and the govt handling of this situation has been decisive and with the benefit of comparison to overseas situations it has been successful so far.

Suggesting that you would want them to do the LEGAL thing INSTEAD OF the RIGHT thing indicates you truly don't understand the unprecedented nature of the situation.

Would you rather stick to 100kmh on the open road if you were transporting a critically injured friend to hospital? Would you break a law to save a life?

Get off your high horse, accept these are unprecedented times requiring unprecedented actions, and that some of those require decisive leadership without the benefit of oversight from the 'pre-times'.

Your attitude sounds like the people in the US protesting that they have had to stay at home too long and want their hairdressers to re-open NOW!

Cheers - N

The state breaking the law because they perceive it as the "right thing" is completely unacceptable in a democracy.

In this case the situation is not without precedent, the government even had a pandemic plan in place. Government powers are limited for a reason, as are the Director General of Health's powers. The number one purpose of a government is to protect its citizens, but only within the law. If the law is inadequate then change it in the normal democratic way.

If the government has broken the law and they knew it, then those affected should get compensation. if they have broken the law "accidentally" then tough, Ignorance is no excuse for me, so it is no excuse for them.

If they haven't broken the law then great, nothing to see here

Matthew

SaltyNZ

8111 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2479078 8-May-2020 10:27

mdooher:

if they have broken the law "accidentally" then tough, Ignorance is no excuse for me, so it is no excuse for them.

So going back to @Talkiet's point, you'd happily pay a fine if you were caught speeding because you had someone bleeding to death in the back of your car? I think you would expect - and I'm pretty sure you would receive - significant leeway under the circumstances.

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...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479112 8-May-2020 10:34

SaltyNZ:

mdooher:

if they have broken the law "accidentally" then tough, Ignorance is no excuse for me, so it is no excuse for them.

So going back to @Talkiet's point, you'd happily pay a fine if you were caught speeding because you had someone bleeding to death in the back of your car? I think you would expect - and I'm pretty sure you would receive - significant leeway under the circumstances.

I would plead guilty and ask the court for leniency.

But what if while speeding I caused an accident? (if while bending the law the government caused damage to peoples lives) I would expect to be punished no matter my intentions.

Matthew

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2479129 8-May-2020 10:38

mdooher:

The state breaking the law because they perceive it as the "right thing" is completely unacceptable in a democracy.

[snip]

In my opinion you are not comprehending what an unprecedented situation is.If society faces a new or unprecedented situation and the only (or best) response isn't supported by current laws that have been crafted over decades or centuries, you have 2 choices (I'll add a 3rd to indulge you)

1) Adhere to the laws and provide a sub-standard response to the situation faced. In this case, you allow people to congregate, spread the disease and many people die and overwhelm the health system

2) You do the right thing, which may not be fully supported by current and historical laws, and fix the situation (or deal with it as well as physically possible).

Choose one, go on, that's not rhetorical. CHOOSE ONE.

Cheers - N

ps. 3) You change the laws and then do 2 - but that will take too long when an immediate response is needed - so I don't consider it a real choice.

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.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479140 8-May-2020 10:52

Talkiet:

mdooher:

The state breaking the law because they perceive it as the "right thing" is completely unacceptable in a democracy.

[snip]

In my opinion you are not comprehending what an unprecedented situation is.If society faces a new or unprecedented situation and the only (or best) response isn't supported by current laws that have been crafted over decades or centuries, you have 2 choices (I'll add a 3rd to indulge you)

1) Adhere to the laws and provide a sub-standard response to the situation faced. In this case, you allow people to congregate, spread the disease and many people die and overwhelm the health system

2) You do the right thing, which may not be fully supported by current and historical laws, and fix the situation (or deal with it as well as physically possible).

Choose one, go on, that's not rhetorical. CHOOSE ONE.

Cheers - N

ps. 3) You change the laws and then do 2 - but that will take too long when an immediate response is needed - so I don't consider it a real choice.

I choose 1), but the results don't have to be substandard. the existing law allows for quarantining of the sick or places where people are sick etc. Remember the govt said they were going to flatten the curve so that hospitals could cope.. but that is not what has happened they have squashed it flat and now the whole county is quarantined from the rest of the world until someone come up with a cure or vaccine.

Actually I choose 1) even if the result is substandard. this obviously means I have a different opinion than you. But that's why I like geekzone,different opinions and reasoned argument.

Matthew

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479143 8-May-2020 10:55

Talkiet:

mdooher:

The state breaking the law because they perceive it as the "right thing" is completely unacceptable in a democracy.

[snip]

In my opinion you are not comprehending what an unprecedented situation is.If society faces a new or unprecedented situation and the only (or best) response isn't supported by current laws that have been crafted over decades or centuries, you have 2 choices (I'll add a 3rd to indulge you)

1) Adhere to the laws and provide a sub-standard response to the situation faced. In this case, you allow people to congregate, spread the disease and many people die and overwhelm the health system

2) You do the right thing, which may not be fully supported by current and historical laws, and fix the situation (or deal with it as well as physically possible).

Choose one, go on, that's not rhetorical. CHOOSE ONE.

Cheers - N

ps. 3) You change the laws and then do 2 - but that will take too long when an immediate response is needed - so I don't consider it a real choice.

You're rather missing the point.

Firstly, as the government proved just last week, they can pass legislation within minutes, so (3) would have been possible.

Secondly, if (and at this point AFAIK it is if) the government legal advice was that to do what they were planning on doing was illegal with no basis in law, for them to then proceed to do it as if that advice did not exist is fundamentally wrong - especially in view of the point I made in the first paragraph.

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?

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2479148 8-May-2020 10:59

mdooher:

[snip]

Actually I choose 1) even if the result is substandard. this obviously means I have a different opinion than you. But that's why I like geekzone,different opinions and reasoned argument.

Wow.

This reminds me of something Isaac Asimov put forward.

http://www.openculture.com/2016/10/isaac-asimov-laments-the-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-united-states.html

"In 1980, scientist and writer Isaac Asimov argued in an essay that “there is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been.”

"Not all of the unreason is partisan, as the anti-vaccination movement has shown. But “the strain of anti-intellectualism" writes Asimov, "has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

My emphasis...

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.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2479158 8-May-2020 11:07

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!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2479168 8-May-2020 11:27

Talkiet:

mdooher:

[snip]

Actually I choose 1) even if the result is substandard. this obviously means I have a different opinion than you. But that's why I like geekzone,different opinions and reasoned argument.

Wow.

This reminds me of something Isaac Asimov put forward.

http://www.openculture.com/2016/10/isaac-asimov-laments-the-cult-of-ignorance-in-the-united-states.html

"In 1980, scientist and writer Isaac Asimov argued in an essay that “there is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been.”

"Not all of the unreason is partisan, as the anti-vaccination movement has shown. But “the strain of anti-intellectualism" writes Asimov, "has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

My emphasis...

Cheers - N

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

Matthew

SaltyNZ

8111 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2479170 8-May-2020 11:29

mdooher:

I would plead guilty and ask the court for leniency.

But what if while speeding I caused an accident? (if while bending the law the government caused damage to peoples lives) I would expect to be punished no matter my intentions.

It's still not the same. The law regarding speeding is very clear because it is trivially explained. Either your speedo shows a number higher than the one on the sign, or it does not. "What powers does the government have to control the spread of an epidemic?" is a vastly more complex issue. It is easy and quick to consciously decide to speed to save a life, and therefore clear that you decided to accept the risk that your illegal action might cause harm.

It is entirely unclear whether any rules were broken at all in this case, and furthermore, lives were going to be lost no matter what decision was reached at the time. Furthermore, it is impossible to know how many lives would have been lost if the decision had been different - however, we can guess, and those guesses (especially in the light of other countries real experiences) indicate that far more lives would have been lost.

The bottom line is that you can't put the trolley problem in front of someone, force them to choose, and then punish them for their choice. Or rather, if you do, you don't end up with the likes of Jacinda Ardern and Ashley Bloomfield in charge. You get people too stupid to realise they're stupid; Donald Trump and Jared Kushner.

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

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

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