Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@Just thinking: NZ has never had an established religion in the way that the Anglican Church is established in England. We are akin to the the rest of the UK, where the CoE isn't the established church.
-
ISTR big posters with English (who was National leader back then) demanding (in effect) white peoples right to go to the beach. (Provided it wasn't Michael Fay's beach, of course).
Tom is right. What's needed is for iwi to get their ownership rights back, subject to a right of access to *all* beaches and coastal strip, whether it's fronted by John Key's mansion or anything else. The only exception would have to be industrial port facilities and the like, but these would need to be scheduled and continue to justify themselves at regular review.
I'd see this as a step to having a general "right-to-roam" on uncultivated land and forest, similar to the Swedish concept of Allemansrätt.
-
Religion is just a system of thought that invokes a deity.
Groups promoting systems of thought that don't invoke deities, like the National Party, Greenpeace or the Wellington Anarchist Collective don't get charitable status. But religions do. And their apologists argue that removing that status is an attack on freedom of religion. Seems to me it's promoting the right to adhere to any religion or none.
All that's needed is a change to the charity law to remove "the advancement of religion" as a charitable purpose. This would have zero impact on any group that doesn't rely on religion for its charitable status.
-
You Aucklanders and your car fetishes. I see there's a new "eco-building" opened in K Rd. Main feature: higher density car parking.
-
Are you saying the Aussies suck?
Like a Dyson 10000 Turbo XL running on three-phase. You gotta problem with that?
-
As Albert Eienstein put it, Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen
Or alternatively in bumper sticker form: common sense is neither
-
Also, in civil cases under balance of probabilities, isn't evidence that would be excluded from a civil trial (hearsay, illegal surveillance, etc) admissible?
-
Greenpeace and other groups organise various creative protests, such as banner drops, port blockades, etc. These protests break several laws (trespass, criminal damage, marine regulations, etc).
These protests have several purposes including raising public and political awareness and also encouraging people to contribute to the organisation. Insofar as those contributions have come about as the result of illegal protests, how are they not "proceeds of crime". On the balance of probabilities, the state might find a judge that thinks so.
Even if the police can't ulimately forfeit the property, they might use restraining orders (s24) to disrupt the activities of groups they dislke. This doesn't require balance of probabilities, just reasonable suspicion, which can mean anything.
I don't think any of this is likely to be imminent, but should we get some terrible threat to the established order, like a dock strike, or interference with sport, things could change rapidly. This measure is one more tool the state can use without needing to go back to parliament for more powers.
-
If a protest organisation (e.g. Greenpeace) were engaging in illegal behaviour (trespass, criminal damage, etc) to make a point, would any money raised by that organisation be "proceeds of crime"?
So that money could be confiscated? And the government would only need to demonstrate that this criminality is "probable" in front of a judge, rather than prosecuting in front of judge and jury?
-
Matt, it's quite possible to rent houses, land and cars. The world is full of corrupt countries where a well connected criminal could keep money tucked away.
Also, I suspect with a bit of tweaking, the government could designate a protest group as a "terrorist organisation" and treat any of their assets (money from donations, for instance) as the proceeds of crime. With this law, they don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any crimes actually took place.
(Before anyone suggests that it's preposterous that a government would use anti-terrorism laws to target legitimate protest, it goes on all the time overseas.