We may then be inspired. I’d see the key points as:
- entrenched and enforceable social and economic rights
Sir Geoffrey was asked about social and economic rights. He noted he was a conservative on such issues, asking eg, what we think a court could do in current circumstances if there was a right to housing.
Contrawise, if 60% of the population want a change and 26% of parliament don’t, the parliamentary vote will fail but a referendum vote will pass and the referendum will almost certainly pass.
That's still up for resolution, but under the process in the Electoral Act, it's either 75% of Parliament, without the public, or 50% of Parliament + 50% of the public. The only way the public get asked is if Parliament actually passes a law setting up the referendum.
I will note however, that the alternative, not have an entrenched bill of rights, isn't much of an improvement from your perspective.
I find the idea of needing supermajorities to change things particularly problematic, because that literally entrenches that a constitutional feature could remain very unpopular in near perpetuity, so long as it advantages 25% of the people.
The process in the Electoral Act (which Palmer proposes carrying over) is a 75% majority in Parliament, or a 50% majority at a referendum.
Why are we joining the Press Council out of interest? Are there any upsides to giving people an official ruling body they can complain about us to?
I supported it because there have been a couple of occasions where I've attended court hearings as a member of the public (occasionally with a possible thought about blogging on them) and suppression has been ordered, and I thought it was either totally unnecessary, or at least overbroad, and I've thought that I'd like to be able to stand up and oppose suppression, and writing for an organisation that is subject to the Press Council would give me that right.
I looked at nominating for the Media awards this year, as it was the first time I felt I'd written 3 posts worthy of nominating in a single calendar year. Then I looked at the category, and thought "best blog site, does it have to be the whole site, do I even qualify to nominate myself?" and then never got around to it, so it's nice to know I actually won :-)
I just found that someone has edited together all the bits of "A Good Day" with the Future Leaders for Democracy in into into one video.
Is this in part an endeavour to counter the End Of Life Choice Bill currently before the Health Select Committee?
- so the populace won’t know of deliberate peaceful exits from Life?
When the law changes, such a death could still be called a suspected suicide, you just couldn't describe the death as taking place in hospital.
I will note that the End of Life Choice Bill is not at a select committee. Rather, a select committee is investigating the law generally, with a view to making recommendations.
Do we have to refer to the Japanese tactics in WW2 as “high risk aerial strike operations”?
Those will be overseas suicides. The extension of the law to those is the one select committee error that is is being fixed.
Interestingly a Dunedin blogger will be in court soon over what may be just this issue, after apparently republishing something she thought was OK.
Based on the article, I would guess it was an allegation of a breach of an actual suppression order (it talks about a "coroner's finding"), but, of course, I don’t know.