Sadly in this country the public have come to expect from our mainstream media nothing less than the misrepresentation of facts in order to present a politically slanted and biased picture that serves to create and foment division within NZ.
Of course, Chris, one might just as well observe that the same legislature has not once but often embedded Te Tiriti in laws. They might even be presumed, like a Court, to have understood the implications of what they were doing.
The Legislature, as constituted in 2011 (because, as I'm sure you're aware, Rob, no Parliament can bind another) was in no doubt as to the implications of the Marine & Coastal Areas Act. John Key and his Treaty Negotiations Minister, Chris Finlayson, were effectively reaffirming Michael Cullen's elegant solution to the foreshore and seabed controversy.
A very small number of hapu and iwi in possession of evidence they had occupied and used a section of the coast exclusively and without substantial interruption since 1840, would be granted customary marine titles by the High Court. There was never any doubt about this until the Court of Appeal, in a judgement irreconcilable with New Zealand's constitutional norms, decided the Act meant something else.
I'm sure that you, like me, will not tolerate New Zealand becoming a krytocracy (a state ruled by judges) without its citizens first signifying their assent by way of a binding referendum.
No keener on a krytocracy future than a a kleptocracy Chris.
I’m not convinced the Court of Appeal acted in a way “irreconcilable” with the late colonial state “norms” though it may have challenged some views of those norms.
I for one, and I’m convinced the vast majority of New Zealanders whether Pakeha or Maori, don’t want to see anywhere near 100% of our coastline owned by various different tribes. Certainly, the vast majority of New Zealanders have not consented to this, and last I looked we were still a democracy
I don't think we can make that presumption, Rob. Perhaps we could ask them whether the consequent "implications" (consequences) were intended or not. If not it's for the government to change laws to correct what has proven to be demonstrably bad policy, or, as in this case, laws that have been willfully misinterpreted .
People "feel" aggrieved about all sorts of things but it's not about "feelings" in this case, that's not what the law is about.
Do the judicial rulings accurately reflect the law or is the interpretation, and, by implication, those making it, at odds with parliament's intention.
On a lighter note the mention of comity - a term I was unfamiliar with until the controversy over the Waitangi Tribunal's summons of Karen Chhour over section 7AA - reminds me of that famous haka: "Comity, comity..."
Chris: "a naked bid for unaccountable power has yet to headline the 1News bulletins"
Not only an activist judiciary but an activist news media with an agenda.
Is it any wonder there is so little faith remaining in these vital institutions?
Sadly in this country the public have come to expect from our mainstream media nothing less than the misrepresentation of facts in order to present a politically slanted and biased picture that serves to create and foment division within NZ.
As always, Chris, we are in your debt. Thank you
The judiciary are one branch amongst many of the smug progressive elite.
Of course, Chris, one might just as well observe that the same legislature has not once but often embedded Te Tiriti in laws. They might even be presumed, like a Court, to have understood the implications of what they were doing.
The Legislature, as constituted in 2011 (because, as I'm sure you're aware, Rob, no Parliament can bind another) was in no doubt as to the implications of the Marine & Coastal Areas Act. John Key and his Treaty Negotiations Minister, Chris Finlayson, were effectively reaffirming Michael Cullen's elegant solution to the foreshore and seabed controversy.
A very small number of hapu and iwi in possession of evidence they had occupied and used a section of the coast exclusively and without substantial interruption since 1840, would be granted customary marine titles by the High Court. There was never any doubt about this until the Court of Appeal, in a judgement irreconcilable with New Zealand's constitutional norms, decided the Act meant something else.
I'm sure that you, like me, will not tolerate New Zealand becoming a krytocracy (a state ruled by judges) without its citizens first signifying their assent by way of a binding referendum.
No keener on a krytocracy future than a a kleptocracy Chris.
I’m not convinced the Court of Appeal acted in a way “irreconcilable” with the late colonial state “norms” though it may have challenged some views of those norms.
You would appear to be describing our present constitutional arrangements as "rule by thieves", with non-Maori presumably being the thieves.
Are you really convinced that this sort of thinking is in the slightest way helpful?
As to your assertion Chris, you might very well say that, I could not possibly comment.
As to your question, I do think that the thinking reflected in the Court of Appeal judgement is helpful, yes.
I for one, and I’m convinced the vast majority of New Zealanders whether Pakeha or Maori, don’t want to see anywhere near 100% of our coastline owned by various different tribes. Certainly, the vast majority of New Zealanders have not consented to this, and last I looked we were still a democracy
I don't think we can make that presumption, Rob. Perhaps we could ask them whether the consequent "implications" (consequences) were intended or not. If not it's for the government to change laws to correct what has proven to be demonstrably bad policy, or, as in this case, laws that have been willfully misinterpreted .
Perhaps we could make that presumption if we took a closer look at the judges?
Lol. The way many of us feel about rulings from the ref or the bunker….
People "feel" aggrieved about all sorts of things but it's not about "feelings" in this case, that's not what the law is about.
Do the judicial rulings accurately reflect the law or is the interpretation, and, by implication, those making it, at odds with parliament's intention.
Are they abusing their authority?
Not in my view. Or, presumably, theirs.
Your most insightful yet!
On a lighter note the mention of comity - a term I was unfamiliar with until the controversy over the Waitangi Tribunal's summons of Karen Chhour over section 7AA - reminds me of that famous haka: "Comity, comity..."