https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it >wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a duty, >to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts >need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to >understand.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Parliament is the highest court in the land. If a court determines
that legislation breaches the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) provisions
then the Government can take remedial actions which may include
amendments to the BORA.
The Government is taking actions long-signaled prior to the last
election. Rich it is safe to assume that if the Government did not
take these actions you would be accusing them of failing to implement
a promised policy.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot true at all but - Don't change the subject!
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it >>wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts >>need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to >>understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a
conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty,
unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a
range of issues.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:43:01 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Parliament is the highest court in the land. If a court determines
that legislation breaches the Bill of Rights Act (BORA) provisions
then the Government can take remedial actions which may include
amendments to the BORA.
The Government is taking actions long-signaled prior to the last
election. Rich it is safe to assume that if the Government did not
take these actions you would be accusing them of failing to implement
a promised policy.
It appears that the government have no plans to amend the BORA -
stirring up trouble for the future.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government has a duty to ensure that legislation does not conflict
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot true at all but - Don't change the subject!
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it >>>wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts >>>need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to >>>understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a
conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a
range of issues.
You asked will the government ignore the courts.
That has been answered by at least two posters - the government has every right
and indeed a duty to do so under many circumstances. End of story. Another >stupid Rich80105 question disposed of.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it >>wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts >>need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to >>understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a
conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty,
unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a
range of issues.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it >>>wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts >>>need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to >>>understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a
conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a
range of issues.
Pot calling kettle black here. Your lot under Ardern ignored human
rights in forcing Covid mandates on everyone to the point that you
could lose your job if you didn't take the un proven vax.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:08:55 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>Absolute bullshit!
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it >>>>wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts >>>>need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to >>>>understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a
conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>range of issues.
Pot calling kettle black here. Your lot under Ardern ignored human
rights in forcing Covid mandates on everyone to the point that you
could lose your job if you didn't take the un proven vax.
I was not subject to any mandate; a lot of New Zealanders were not so >affected. I understand that some hospital staff and some of our armed
forces are still required to maintain fully vaccinated status - for
the military that is so they can be deployed overseas at short notice.
You are correct that there were legal problems with some Covid
response decisions - essentially we were not adequately prepared for
such a dangerous virus; relevant laws have been changed to authorise
future actions is required - and I am not aware of the current
government planning any changed to those authorisations. Part of the
reasons for the lock downs were to give time for the effects of the
vaccines then available to be assessed; as a small country we were
also not top of the list for supplies.
In a sense, it is like violently shoving a stranger to the ground - to
save that person from imminent danger. Such assault may well be
excused and not result in prosecution if it saved the persons life.
Had New Zealand followed the actions of for example the United States,
we may well have avoided the government taking actions that were
technically not authorised, but then we did save around 22,000 lives,
and the (now proven) vaccines continue to be recommended by the
current government - although I note that they have not indicated they
will continue to be free after the end of June - tax cuts for the
wealthy have a higher priority than lives . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I am arguing that giving the Courts conflicting legislation is not
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:55:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou just changed the subject again. First of all you talked about ignoring the >courts and now you are talking different shit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government has a duty to ensure that legislation does not conflict
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not true at all but - Don't change the subject!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it >>>>>wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts
need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to >>>>>understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a >>>>conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>>range of issues.
You asked will the government ignore the courts.
That has been answered by at least two posters - the government has every >>>right
and indeed a duty to do so under many circumstances. End of story. Another >>>stupid Rich80105 question disposed of.
with other legislation - or are you claiming that is the government's >>intention?
There is no suggestion that any legislative conflict will ensue.
Piss off and start your own thread.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:55:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou just changed the subject again. First of all you talked about ignoring the courts and now you are talking different shit.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government has a duty to ensure that legislation does not conflict
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot true at all but - Don't change the subject!
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it >>>>wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts >>>>need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to >>>>understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a
conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>range of issues.
You asked will the government ignore the courts.
That has been answered by at least two posters - the government has every >>right
and indeed a duty to do so under many circumstances. End of story. Another >>stupid Rich80105 question disposed of.
with other legislation - or are you claiming that is the government's >intention?
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what
it wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right,
indeed a duty, to ignore the courts.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:29:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyThen you are arguing incoherently.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I am arguing that giving the Courts conflicting legislation is not
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:55:39 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou just changed the subject again. First of all you talked about ignoring >>the
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government has a duty to ensure that legislation does not conflict >>>with other legislation - or are you claiming that is the government's >>>intention?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not true at all but - Don't change the subject!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what >>>>>>it
wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>>>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the >>>>>>courts
need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle >>>>>>to
understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a >>>>>conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>>>range of issues.
You asked will the government ignore the courts.
That has been answered by at least two posters - the government has every >>>>right
and indeed a duty to do so under many circumstances. End of story. Another >>>>stupid Rich80105 question disposed of.
courts and now you are talking different shit.
There is no suggestion that any legislative conflict will ensue.
Piss off and start your own thread.
good practice. They should not ignore the Courts.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Do you ever post anything sensible?
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what
it wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right,
indeed a duty, to ignore the courts.
To hell with checks and balances, eh?
Ah, what a Benjamin Netanyahu thing to say ...Do you ever post anything that makes any sort of sense?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional- >government.html
New Zealand has no constitution so there can be no such thing as an anti- >constitutional government. Dickbot needs to read more widely but prefers
to live in an echo chamber so will remain ignorant for life.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what
it wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right,
indeed a duty, to ignore the courts.
To hell with checks and balances, eh?
Ah, what a Benjamin Netanyahu thing to say ...
On 2024-02-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:He's not very good at it is he?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Of course not, he is out trolling.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Do you ever post anything sensible?
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what >>>> it wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right,
indeed a duty, to ignore the courts.
To hell with checks and balances, eh?
Do you ever post anything that makes any sort of sense?
Ah, what a Benjamin Netanyahu thing to say ...
Clearly not today.
On 2024-02-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes that is correct - we pay in several ways.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:08:55 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Absolute bullshit!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what >>>>>>it
wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>>>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the >>>>>>courts
need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle >>>>>>to
understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a >>>>>conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>>>range of issues.
Pot calling kettle black here. Your lot under Ardern ignored human >>>>rights in forcing Covid mandates on everyone to the point that you >>>>could lose your job if you didn't take the un proven vax.
I was not subject to any mandate; a lot of New Zealanders were not so >>>affected. I understand that some hospital staff and some of our armed >>>forces are still required to maintain fully vaccinated status - for
the military that is so they can be deployed overseas at short notice. >>>You are correct that there were legal problems with some Covid
response decisions - essentially we were not adequately prepared for
such a dangerous virus; relevant laws have been changed to authorise >>>future actions is required - and I am not aware of the current
government planning any changed to those authorisations. Part of the >>>reasons for the lock downs were to give time for the effects of the >>>vaccines then available to be assessed; as a small country we were
also not top of the list for supplies.
In a sense, it is like violently shoving a stranger to the ground - to >>>save that person from imminent danger. Such assault may well be
excused and not result in prosecution if it saved the persons life.
Had New Zealand followed the actions of for example the United States,
we may well have avoided the government taking actions that were >>>technically not authorised, but then we did save around 22,000 lives,
and the (now proven) vaccines continue to be recommended by the
current government - although I note that they have not indicated they >>>will continue to be free after the end of June - tax cuts for the
wealthy have a higher priority than lives . . .
Even the bit about the vaccines being free after June. They never were and >never will be free, either in $ terms or medical terms.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot true at all but - Don't change the subject!
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it >>>wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts >>>need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to >>>understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a
conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a
range of issues.
You asked will the government ignore the courts.
That has been answered by at least two posters - the government has every right
and indeed a duty to do so under many circumstances. End of story. Another stupid Rich80105 question disposed of.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:29:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyThen you are arguing incoherently.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I am arguing that giving the Courts conflicting legislation is not
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You just changed the subject again. First of all you talked about ignoring >>>the
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government has a duty to ensure that legislation does not conflict >>>>with other legislation - or are you claiming that is the government's >>>>intention?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not true at all but - Don't change the subject!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what >>>>>>>it
wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>>>>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the >>>>>>>courts
need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle >>>>>>>to
understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a >>>>>>conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>>>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>>>>range of issues.
You asked will the government ignore the courts.
That has been answered by at least two posters - the government has every >>>>>right
and indeed a duty to do so under many circumstances. End of story. Another >>>>>stupid Rich80105 question disposed of.
courts and now you are talking different shit.
There is no suggestion that any legislative conflict will ensue.
Piss off and start your own thread.
good practice. They should not ignore the Courts.
The courts are subservient to government - period.
The entire idea of this thread is idiotic.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:29:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyThen you are arguing incoherently.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I am arguing that giving the Courts conflicting legislation is not
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You just changed the subject again. First of all you talked about ignoring >>>the
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government has a duty to ensure that legislation does not conflict >>>>with other legislation - or are you claiming that is the government's >>>>intention?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not true at all but - Don't change the subject!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what >>>>>>>it
wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>>>>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the >>>>>>>courts
need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle >>>>>>>to
understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a >>>>>>conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>>>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>>>>range of issues.
You asked will the government ignore the courts.
That has been answered by at least two posters - the government has every >>>>>right
and indeed a duty to do so under many circumstances. End of story. Another >>>>>stupid Rich80105 question disposed of.
courts and now you are talking different shit.
There is no suggestion that any legislative conflict will ensue.
Piss off and start your own thread.
good practice. They should not ignore the Courts.
The courts are subservient to government - period.
The entire idea of this thread is idiotic.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Do you ever post anything sensible?
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what
it wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right,
indeed a duty, to ignore the courts.
To hell with checks and balances, eh?
Do you ever post anything that makes any sort of sense?
Ah, what a Benjamin Netanyahu thing to say ...
Clearly not today.
On 2024-02-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:08:55 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:Absolute bullshit!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what it
wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a >>>>>>duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the courts
need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle to
understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a >>>>>conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>>>range of issues.
Pot calling kettle black here. Your lot under Ardern ignored human >>>>rights in forcing Covid mandates on everyone to the point that you >>>>could lose your job if you didn't take the un proven vax.
I was not subject to any mandate; a lot of New Zealanders were not so >>>affected. I understand that some hospital staff and some of our armed >>>forces are still required to maintain fully vaccinated status - for
the military that is so they can be deployed overseas at short notice. >>>You are correct that there were legal problems with some Covid
response decisions - essentially we were not adequately prepared for
such a dangerous virus; relevant laws have been changed to authorise >>>future actions is required - and I am not aware of the current
government planning any changed to those authorisations. Part of the >>>reasons for the lock downs were to give time for the effects of the >>>vaccines then available to be assessed; as a small country we were
also not top of the list for supplies.
In a sense, it is like violently shoving a stranger to the ground - to >>>save that person from imminent danger. Such assault may well be
excused and not result in prosecution if it saved the persons life.
Had New Zealand followed the actions of for example the United States,
we may well have avoided the government taking actions that were >>>technically not authorised, but then we did save around 22,000 lives,
and the (now proven) vaccines continue to be recommended by the
current government - although I note that they have not indicated they >>>will continue to be free after the end of June - tax cuts for the
wealthy have a higher priority than lives . . .
Even the bit about the vaccines being free after June. They never were and >never will be free, either in $ terms or medical terms.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:46:20 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional- >>government.html
New Zealand has no constitution so there can be no such thing as an anti- >>constitutional government. Dickbot needs to read more widely but prefers
to live in an echo chamber so will remain ignorant for life.
There are many who do consider we have a constitution via
constitutional Acts:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/constitution/page-1
However Parliament is a single house and the highest court in the
land. The Judiciary can identify conflicts in one Act vs another but
cannot fix it.
On 2024-02-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Of course not, he is out trolling.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Do you ever post anything sensible?
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what >>>> it wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right,
indeed a duty, to ignore the courts.
To hell with checks and balances, eh?
Do you ever post anything that makes any sort of sense?
Ah, what a Benjamin Netanyahu thing to say ...
Clearly not today.
On 27 Feb 2024 03:48:20 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The difference between a written constitution and a constitutional system is profound - they are not the same thing. We don't have a written constitution.
On 2024-02-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:29:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Then you are arguing incoherently.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I am arguing that giving the Courts conflicting legislation is not >>>>good practice. They should not ignore the Courts.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You just changed the subject again. First of all you talked about ignoring >>>>>the
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government has a duty to ensure that legislation does not conflict >>>>>>with other legislation - or are you claiming that is the government's >>>>>>intention?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not true at all but - Don't change the subject!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided >>>>>>>>>what
it
wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed >>>>>>>>>a
duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the >>>>>>>>>courts
need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you >>>>>>>>>struggle
to
understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a >>>>>>>>conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>>>>>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>>>>>>range of issues.
You asked will the government ignore the courts.
That has been answered by at least two posters - the government has >>>>>>>every
right
and indeed a duty to do so under many circumstances. End of story. >>>>>>>Another
stupid Rich80105 question disposed of.
courts and now you are talking different shit.
There is no suggestion that any legislative conflict will ensue.
Piss off and start your own thread.
The courts are subservient to government - period.
The entire idea of this thread is idiotic.
Some would say it is the muddled thinking of the Left. Getting tangled up in >>the details and losing sight of the spirit of the law.
You may enjoy this: >https://teara.govt.nz/en/diagram/35879/new-zealands-constitutional-system
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>There is no likelihood of conflicting law. That is handled by due process in parliamanet and the officials.
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:46:20 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional- >>>government.html
New Zealand has no constitution so there can be no such thing as an anti- >>>constitutional government. Dickbot needs to read more widely but prefers >>>to live in an echo chamber so will remain ignorant for life.
There are many who do consider we have a constitution via
constitutional Acts:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/constitution/page-1
However Parliament is a single house and the highest court in the
land. The Judiciary can identify conflicts in one Act vs another but >>cannot fix it.
If they do have to dismiss a prosecution due to conflicting law that
may encourage the government to clarify the law - it could be a bit >embarrassing to have to change a law for an issue identified and
ignored on a bill rushed through without a select Committee; but then
that may never happen . . .
On 2024-02-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:29:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyThen you are arguing incoherently.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No, I am arguing that giving the Courts conflicting legislation is not >>>good practice. They should not ignore the Courts.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You just changed the subject again. First of all you talked about ignoring >>>>the
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The government has a duty to ensure that legislation does not conflict >>>>>with other legislation - or are you claiming that is the government's >>>>>intention?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Not true at all but - Don't change the subject!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional-government.html
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what >>>>>>>>it
wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right, indeed a
duty,
to ignore the courts. All it has to do is enable legislation and the >>>>>>>>courts
need to follow. That is called democracy, something I know you struggle >>>>>>>>to
understand.
The government is ignoring Human Rights Legislation, creating a >>>>>>>conflict in law. That is reprehensible as it creates uncertainty, >>>>>>>unfairness, and increases costs to litigants and defendants across a >>>>>>>range of issues.
You asked will the government ignore the courts.
That has been answered by at least two posters - the government has every >>>>>>right
and indeed a duty to do so under many circumstances. End of story. Another
stupid Rich80105 question disposed of.
courts and now you are talking different shit.
There is no suggestion that any legislative conflict will ensue.
Piss off and start your own thread.
The courts are subservient to government - period.
The entire idea of this thread is idiotic.
Some would say it is the muddled thinking of the Left. Getting tangled up in >the details and losing sight of the spirit of the law.
On 27 Feb 2024 03:24:39 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:I don't think Lawrence likes you either. That is worth two points.
On 2024-02-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Of course not, he is out trolling.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 06:02:22 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Do you ever post anything sensible?
Provided the government has the backing of the people and provided what >>>>> it wants to do is ethical and appropriate then it has every right,
indeed a duty, to ignore the courts.
To hell with checks and balances, eh?
Do you ever post anything that makes any sort of sense?
Ah, what a Benjamin Netanyahu thing to say ...
Clearly not today.
We can be a bit more generous than that - give him a point for
answering his own question - just a shame he got the answer wrong . .
.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:46:20 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional- >>>government.html
New Zealand has no constitution so there can be no such thing as an anti- >>>constitutional government. Dickbot needs to read more widely but prefers >>>to live in an echo chamber so will remain ignorant for life.
There are many who do consider we have a constitution via
constitutional Acts:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/constitution/page-1
However Parliament is a single house and the highest court in the
land. The Judiciary can identify conflicts in one Act vs another but >>cannot fix it.
If they do have to dismiss a prosecution due to conflicting law that
may encourage the government to clarify the law - it could be a bit >embarrassing to have to change a law for an issue identified and
ignored on a bill rushed through without a select Committee; but then
that may never happen . . .
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:06:03 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:46:20 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional- >>>>government.html
New Zealand has no constitution so there can be no such thing as an anti- >>>>constitutional government. Dickbot needs to read more widely but prefers >>>>to live in an echo chamber so will remain ignorant for life.
There are many who do consider we have a constitution via
constitutional Acts:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/constitution/page-1
However Parliament is a single house and the highest court in the
land. The Judiciary can identify conflicts in one Act vs another but >>>cannot fix it.
If they do have to dismiss a prosecution due to conflicting law that
may encourage the government to clarify the law - it could be a bit >>embarrassing to have to change a law for an issue identified and
ignored on a bill rushed through without a select Committee; but then
that may never happen . . .
Embarrassing only for the civil servants that failed to advise the
Government of the particular issue, unless the Government was advised
and failed to act on it. Can you cite such an occurrence?
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:06:03 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:46:20 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional- >>>>government.html
New Zealand has no constitution so there can be no such thing as an anti- >>>>constitutional government. Dickbot needs to read more widely but prefers >>>>to live in an echo chamber so will remain ignorant for life.
There are many who do consider we have a constitution via
constitutional Acts:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/constitution/page-1
However Parliament is a single house and the highest court in the
land. The Judiciary can identify conflicts in one Act vs another but >>>cannot fix it.
If they do have to dismiss a prosecution due to conflicting law that
may encourage the government to clarify the law - it could be a bit >>embarrassing to have to change a law for an issue identified and
ignored on a bill rushed through without a select Committee; but then
that may never happen . . .
Embarrassing only for the civil servants that failed to advise the
Government of the particular issue, unless the Government was advised
and failed to act on it. Can you cite such an occurrence?
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:14:56 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>You have now gone full circle and back to your original faulty logic.
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:06:03 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:46:20 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional- >>>>>government.html
New Zealand has no constitution so there can be no such thing as an anti- >>>>>constitutional government. Dickbot needs to read more widely but prefers >>>>>to live in an echo chamber so will remain ignorant for life.
There are many who do consider we have a constitution via >>>>constitutional Acts:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/constitution/page-1
However Parliament is a single house and the highest court in the
land. The Judiciary can identify conflicts in one Act vs another but >>>>cannot fix it.
If they do have to dismiss a prosecution due to conflicting law that
may encourage the government to clarify the law - it could be a bit >>>embarrassing to have to change a law for an issue identified and
ignored on a bill rushed through without a select Committee; but then >>>that may never happen . . .
Embarrassing only for the civil servants that failed to advise the >>Government of the particular issue, unless the Government was advised
and failed to act on it. Can you cite such an occurrence?
In relation to legislation that is currently being put through
parliament I said above that such an occurrence may never happen, but
clearly the issue has been discussed in the past - see: >https://teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/35891/the-government-and-rightshttps://teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/35891/the-government-and-rights
The article that was referred to at the start of the thread gave
reference to this: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510152/bill-of-rights-won-t-stop-gang-patch-ban-justice-minister
and from that article:
"Gang patch bans have been tried before - through a bylaw in Whanganui
in 2009.
The Hells Angels later asked the High Court to review the law and it
ruled the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, specifically
the right to freedom of expression.
The government said its ban was based on "legislation that's worked"
in Australia, but Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights states everyone has the freedom to expression,
including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and
opinions of any kind.
Asked whether banning gang patches would breach that right, Justice
Minister Paul Goldsmith said "people have also got the right to be
able live peacefully in a society without being intimidated and
harassed".
"There's always a balance and we'll work our way through the human
rights implications but of course we campaigned on bringing in these >policies, we've been elected, the Cabinet's made the decisions, we've >prepared the legislation and we're going to do what we said we're
going to do."
If the bill ultimately was found to breach the Bill of Rights,
Goldsmith said it would not stop the government from making it law.
The government had to balance the rights of law-abiding citizens to go
about their business without being intimidated against the rights of
gang members' to self-expression, he said.
Parliament has the ability to make a judgement and then ultimately the >government is held accountable at the ballot box,.
"If people don't agree with us, they'll throw us out," Goldsmith said.
Police Association president Chris Cahill said he anticipated gangs
would fight the changes in court.
"It's certainly going to be controversial and there will be challenges >throughout the courts I'm sure, probably all the way to the Supreme
Court around the Bill of Rights."
There is however a statement at the end which indicates the
legislation will not be rushed through : "The legislation will be
accompanied by a report from the Attorney-General, outlining the human
rights implications, when it is introduced to Parliament this week.
It will go through the full Select Committee process, meaning anyone
can have their say on the new laws later this year."
Let us hope that common sense prevails - from the same article:
"Labour's police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said focusing on gang
wardrobes wasn't good policy; arguing seizing weapons and shutting
down illegal businesses was a better use of resources.
She also raised concerns the ban on gang patches would put police
officers at risk.
"I'm concerned about the impact on increased assaults to the
frontline. It's really hard for police to consistently enforce this
law right across New Zealand. That will be a challenge."
To an extent, this is National "feeding the chooks" - they are finding
it hard to deliver value to anyone but the wealthy, and this is a
great distraction from cost of living increases, cuts to benefits and >increasing poverty . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:14:56 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:You have now gone full circle and back to your original faulty logic.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:06:03 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:46:20 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional- >>>>>>government.html
New Zealand has no constitution so there can be no such thing as an anti- >>>>>>constitutional government. Dickbot needs to read more widely but prefers >>>>>>to live in an echo chamber so will remain ignorant for life.
There are many who do consider we have a constitution via >>>>>constitutional Acts:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/constitution/page-1
However Parliament is a single house and the highest court in the >>>>>land. The Judiciary can identify conflicts in one Act vs another but >>>>>cannot fix it.
If they do have to dismiss a prosecution due to conflicting law that >>>>may encourage the government to clarify the law - it could be a bit >>>>embarrassing to have to change a law for an issue identified and >>>>ignored on a bill rushed through without a select Committee; but then >>>>that may never happen . . .
Embarrassing only for the civil servants that failed to advise the >>>Government of the particular issue, unless the Government was advised
and failed to act on it. Can you cite such an occurrence?
In relation to legislation that is currently being put through
parliament I said above that such an occurrence may never happen, but >>clearly the issue has been discussed in the past - see: >>https://teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/35891/the-government-and-rightshttps://teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/35891/the-government-and-rights
The article that was referred to at the start of the thread gave
reference to this: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510152/bill-of-rights-won-t-stop-gang-patch-ban-justice-minister
and from that article:
"Gang patch bans have been tried before - through a bylaw in Whanganui
in 2009.
The Hells Angels later asked the High Court to review the law and it
ruled the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, specifically
the right to freedom of expression.
The government said its ban was based on "legislation that's worked"
in Australia, but Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights states everyone has the freedom to expression,
including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and
opinions of any kind.
Asked whether banning gang patches would breach that right, Justice >>Minister Paul Goldsmith said "people have also got the right to be
able live peacefully in a society without being intimidated and
harassed".
"There's always a balance and we'll work our way through the human
rights implications but of course we campaigned on bringing in these >>policies, we've been elected, the Cabinet's made the decisions, we've >>prepared the legislation and we're going to do what we said we're
going to do."
If the bill ultimately was found to breach the Bill of Rights,
Goldsmith said it would not stop the government from making it law.
The government had to balance the rights of law-abiding citizens to go >>about their business without being intimidated against the rights of
gang members' to self-expression, he said.
Parliament has the ability to make a judgement and then ultimately the >>government is held accountable at the ballot box,.
"If people don't agree with us, they'll throw us out," Goldsmith said.
Police Association president Chris Cahill said he anticipated gangs
would fight the changes in court.
"It's certainly going to be controversial and there will be challenges >>throughout the courts I'm sure, probably all the way to the Supreme
Court around the Bill of Rights."
There is however a statement at the end which indicates the
legislation will not be rushed through : "The legislation will be >>accompanied by a report from the Attorney-General, outlining the human >>rights implications, when it is introduced to Parliament this week.
It will go through the full Select Committee process, meaning anyone
can have their say on the new laws later this year."
Let us hope that common sense prevails - from the same article:
"Labour's police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said focusing on gang >>wardrobes wasn't good policy; arguing seizing weapons and shutting
down illegal businesses was a better use of resources.
She also raised concerns the ban on gang patches would put police
officers at risk.
"I'm concerned about the impact on increased assaults to the
frontline. It's really hard for police to consistently enforce this
law right across New Zealand. That will be a challenge."
To an extent, this is National "feeding the chooks" - they are finding
it hard to deliver value to anyone but the wealthy, and this is a
great distraction from cost of living increases, cuts to benefits and >>increasing poverty . . .
Give it away and stop your political whoring.
and from that article:
"Gang patch bans have been tried before - through a bylaw in Whanganui
in 2009.
The Hells Angels later asked the High Court to review the law and it
ruled the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, specifically
the right to freedom of expression.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:41:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyWHat? You are the whore. >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510152/bill-of-rights-won-t-stop-gang-patch-ban-justice-minister
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:14:56 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:You have now gone full circle and back to your original faulty logic.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:06:03 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:13:15 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 21:46:20 -0000 (UTC), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:56:56 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/02/an-anti-constitutional- >>>>>>>government.html
New Zealand has no constitution so there can be no such thing as an anti-
constitutional government. Dickbot needs to read more widely but prefers >>>>>>>to live in an echo chamber so will remain ignorant for life.
There are many who do consider we have a constitution via >>>>>>constitutional Acts:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/constitution/page-1
However Parliament is a single house and the highest court in the >>>>>>land. The Judiciary can identify conflicts in one Act vs another but >>>>>>cannot fix it.
If they do have to dismiss a prosecution due to conflicting law that >>>>>may encourage the government to clarify the law - it could be a bit >>>>>embarrassing to have to change a law for an issue identified and >>>>>ignored on a bill rushed through without a select Committee; but then >>>>>that may never happen . . .
Embarrassing only for the civil servants that failed to advise the >>>>Government of the particular issue, unless the Government was advised >>>>and failed to act on it. Can you cite such an occurrence?
In relation to legislation that is currently being put through
parliament I said above that such an occurrence may never happen, but >>>clearly the issue has been discussed in the past - see: >>>https://teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/35891/the-government-and-rightshttps://teara.govt.nz/en/cartoon/35891/the-government-and-rights
The article that was referred to at the start of the thread gave >>>reference to this: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510152/bill-of-rights-won-t-stop-gang-patch-ban-justice-minister
and from that article:
"Gang patch bans have been tried before - through a bylaw in Whanganui
in 2009.
The Hells Angels later asked the High Court to review the law and it >>>ruled the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, specifically
the right to freedom of expression.
The government said its ban was based on "legislation that's worked"
in Australia, but Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights states everyone has the freedom to expression, >>>including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and >>>opinions of any kind.
Asked whether banning gang patches would breach that right, Justice >>>Minister Paul Goldsmith said "people have also got the right to be
able live peacefully in a society without being intimidated and >>>harassed".
"There's always a balance and we'll work our way through the human
rights implications but of course we campaigned on bringing in these >>>policies, we've been elected, the Cabinet's made the decisions, we've >>>prepared the legislation and we're going to do what we said we're
going to do."
If the bill ultimately was found to breach the Bill of Rights,
Goldsmith said it would not stop the government from making it law.
The government had to balance the rights of law-abiding citizens to go >>>about their business without being intimidated against the rights of
gang members' to self-expression, he said.
Parliament has the ability to make a judgement and then ultimately the >>>government is held accountable at the ballot box,.
"If people don't agree with us, they'll throw us out," Goldsmith said.
Police Association president Chris Cahill said he anticipated gangs
would fight the changes in court.
"It's certainly going to be controversial and there will be challenges >>>throughout the courts I'm sure, probably all the way to the Supreme
Court around the Bill of Rights."
There is however a statement at the end which indicates the
legislation will not be rushed through : "The legislation will be >>>accompanied by a report from the Attorney-General, outlining the human >>>rights implications, when it is introduced to Parliament this week.
It will go through the full Select Committee process, meaning anyone
can have their say on the new laws later this year."
Let us hope that common sense prevails - from the same article:
"Labour's police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said focusing on gang >>>wardrobes wasn't good policy; arguing seizing weapons and shutting
down illegal businesses was a better use of resources.
She also raised concerns the ban on gang patches would put police >>>officers at risk.
"I'm concerned about the impact on increased assaults to the
frontline. It's really hard for police to consistently enforce this
law right across New Zealand. That will be a challenge."
To an extent, this is National "feeding the chooks" - they are finding
it hard to deliver value to anyone but the wealthy, and this is a
great distraction from cost of living increases, cuts to benefits and >>>increasing poverty . . .
Give it away and stop your political whoring.
It is not my logic - from above:
and from that article:
"Gang patch bans have been tried before - through a bylaw in Whanganui
in 2009.
The Hells Angels later asked the High Court to review the law and it
ruled the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, specifically
the right to freedom of expression.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 106:48:39 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,410 |