"Compulsion brings a number of issues with it..."

[Willy Nilly]

An enlightening quote from one of our brain-dead masters:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/436956/govt-faced-with-competing-advice-on-mandatory-mask-use-chris-hipkins

Chris Hipkins, our Covid-19 Response Minister, talks about Cabinet
debating making the use of QR code scanning compulsory:

"Compulsion brings a number of issues with it including how do you
enforce that, where does the burden lie, does it lie with the
individual, does it lie with the business, what do you do with people
who don't have phones, who don't use phones regularly. We've got to
work through all of those things."

Anybody notice anything missing in Hipkins' laundry list? Such as a
little thing known as *human rights*? Not on Labour's radar, it
seems. To them, Cabinet has all the rights, we the people have none.

When is the next election? Good Lord it's long time away.

[Rich80105]

Post by Willy Nilly
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/436956/govt-faced-with-competing-advice-on-mandatory-mask-use-chris-hipkins
Chris Hipkins, our Covid-19 Response Minister, talks about Cabinet
"Compulsion brings a number of issues with it including how do you
enforce that, where does the burden lie, does it lie with the
individual, does it lie with the business, what do you do with people
who don't have phones, who don't use phones regularly. We've got to
work through all of those things."
Anybody notice anything missing in Hipkins' laundry list? Such as a
little thing known as *human rights*? Not on Labour's radar, it
seems. To them, Cabinet has all the rights, we the people have none.

Another view is that all of the issues raised by Hipkins are related
to Human Rights - including the right to safety and to life. In
reality Cabinet are exercising the same rights you have - the right to
discuss issues. Cabinet however can recommend law changes to
parliament, as that would be what is required for law changes; and the
Minister has rights under legislation to set some restrictions for the
safety of New Zealanders from Covid.

So just what do you recommend in relation to compulsory QR Code
scanning, Willy?

Do you object to the Minister seeking further advice?

Post by Willy Nilly
When is the next election? Good Lord it's long time away.

[Willy Nilly]

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly
Anybody notice anything missing in Hipkins' laundry list? Such as a
little thing known as *human rights*? Not on Labour's radar, it
seems. To them, Cabinet has all the rights, we the people have none.

Another view is that all of the issues raised by Hipkins are related
to Human Rights - including the right to safety and to life.

You have invented that. Do you have the right not to be eaten by a
Tiger? Does the Tiger not equally have the right to chase you and eat
you? Anything which requires the work of others is not a "right".
There is no right to "safety", in particular, with all of its
concommitant obligations for others to labour on your behalf. Keep
yourself safe.

Post by Rich80105
So just what do you recommend in relation to compulsory QR Code
scanning, Willy?

That it should be optional, duh.

Post by Rich80105
Do you object to the Minister seeking further advice?

What a mindless "question". What if the question was that you, Rich,
should be arrested and, without trial, taken to a gulag on the
Auckland Islands. Would you object to the Minister "seeking further
advice" on that? Would you not object to the topic arising at all?

Just more Rich trolling. Heavens, why did I bite?

[James Christophers]

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly
Anybody notice anything missing in Hipkins' laundry list? Such as a
little thing known as *human rights*? Not on Labour's radar, it
seems. To them, Cabinet has all the rights, we the people have none.

Another view is that all of the issues raised by Hipkins are related
to Human Rights - including the right to safety and to life.

Let's rephrase that: ...related to HumanRights - including the right to life and to reasonably expect to live in safety **as the norm**.

You have invented that. Do you have the right not to be eaten by a
Tiger?

He has the right not to be involuntarily exposed to such risk caused by another party.

Does the Tiger not equally have the right to chase you and eat
you?

He does. The tiger's behaviour is primal. It can't help itself. Much of human behaviour is also fundamentally primal; but it is tempered by learned reason and, through this, voluntary restraint. Breaches occur - sometimes all too tragically, when reflex emotions spontaneously occlude/exclude reason and restraint - i.e. momentary regression to the primal condition.

Anything which requires the work of others is not a "right".

There's such a thing as fair exchange in life and you are at it in life as much as anyone else(!)

There is no right to "safety", in particular, with all of its
concommitant obligations for others to labour on your behalf. Keep
yourself safe.

In life one does one's best in safety observance, Willy. But still "The Fates conspire" and "The best-laid plans of mice and men..." That's why civilised, democratic societies have appropriate provisions and protections built into them, thereby nurturing co-responsibility and social cohesion without which you won't get far in life. These are mainly the vocational services, the very first services we call up and rely on when there's trouble and social cohesion isn't enough. Our expectations of them are almost limitless, but their pay structures seldom if ever reflect this. So where's the quid pro quo there, Willy?

Post by Rich80105
So just what do you recommend in relation to compulsory QR Code
scanning, Willy?

That it should be optional, duh.

"Optional" as in **deliberately** not complying with stop signs at road junctions? - prevalent, if I may say so, to the point of lethal, dumbfuck arrogance in New Zealand.

Post by Rich80105
Do you object to the Minister seeking further advice?

To me, an odd extension of the case you put, but essentially, non-hypothetical in the context of these exchanges - so OK.

What a mindless "question". What if the question was that you, Rich,
should be arrested and, without trial, taken to a gulag on the
Auckland Islands.

Ah - but now it's **you** who have invented **that**, it being distinctly hypothetical - emotive hyperbole, even - and, again, unknowingly driven by the oh-so-insidious, case-damaging Foucault fallacy.

Would you object to the Minister "seeking further
advice" on that? Would you not object to the topic arising at all?

As I say...

Just more Rich trolling. Heavens, why did I bite?

Well, you did, and If you've learned anything at all from it you will have gained a little and lost nothing.

[Rich80105]

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly
Anybody notice anything missing in Hipkins' laundry list? Such as a
little thing known as *human rights*? Not on Labour's radar, it
seems. To them, Cabinet has all the rights, we the people have none.

Another view is that all of the issues raised by Hipkins are related
to Human Rights - including the right to safety and to life.

You have invented that. Do you have the right not to be eaten by a
Tiger?

Of course - in fact there is legislation restricting the import of
animals such as tigers, and legislation requiring any in the country
to not have access to the public generally (and health and safety
legislation to protect zoo workers. So you also have that right, Willy
. . .

Post by Willy Nilly
Does the Tiger not equally have the right to chase you and eat
you?

No, the tiger does not - all tigers in NZ must be securely held.

Post by Willy Nilly
Anything which requires the work of others is not a "right".

The right to justice invovles police and courts - I believe they work
on our behalf . . .

Post by Willy Nilly
There is no right to "safety", in particular, with all of its
concommitant obligations for others to labour on your behalf. Keep
yourself safe.

Except of course for extensive safety legislation - a good example is
speed limits. I have the 'right' to expect those laws to be followed
by others and enforced when they are not follwed.

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Rich80105
So just what do you recommend in relation to compulsory QR Code
scanning, Willy?

That it should be optional, duh.

As I expect it has to be - we do not all have mobile phones.
Businesses are however required to have available a register. The
issue that has been raised is whether it should becompulsory to 'log
in' to different places. Some I suspect already make completion of a
register compulsory - an MIQ facility for example, and that may be a
condition of employment for some. Making it more general is not simle,
and apparently the government has received conflicting advice.

Post by Willy Nilly

Post by Rich80105
Do you object to the Minister seeking further advice?

What a mindless "question". What if the question was that you, Rich,
should be arrested and, without trial, taken to a gulag on the
Auckland Islands. Would you object to the Minister "seeking further
advice" on that? Would you not object to the topic arising at all?

Lovely hypothetical scenario Willy, but perhaps there are
circumstances where it could be justified for the safety of all. You
have not however answered my question as to whether you object to the
Minister seeking further advice.

Post by Willy Nilly
Just more Rich trolling. Heavens, why did I bite?

Did you? I hope whatever you bit does not result in a covid-19
infection for you . . .

[James Christophers]

Post by Willy Nilly
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/436956/govt-faced-with-competing-advice-on-mandatory-mask-use-chris-hipkins
Chris Hipkins, our Covid-19 Response Minister, talks about Cabinet
"Compulsion brings a number of issues with it including how do you
enforce that, where does the burden lie, does it lie with the
individual, does it lie with the business, what do you do with people
who don't have phones, who don't use phones regularly. We've got to
work through all of those things."
Anybody notice anything missing in Hipkins' laundry list? Such as a
little thing known as *human rights*? Not on Labour's radar, it
seems. To them, Cabinet has all the rights, we the people have none.

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that this can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Nevertheless, the proviso always applies: that with rights come their quid pro quo: responsibilities.

A government takes both rights and their quid pro quo proviso into account when formulating and legislating policy. That, again, is no less than its rightful function and duty.

How any individual may feel about any particular government policy devised and applied in its "defence of the realm" initiatives, is for that individual to decide and deal with on his own account.

But in doing so he might well be mindful of the anarchist Foucault (Yorkshire pronunciation 'fook-all'), whose thinking was based on "the chippy paranoia which exists in the minds of many 'little people', namely that the policeman pacing reassuringly up and down the end of the pavement, the nurse bustling unselfishly about the hospital ward, the doctor working long hours in his surgery, the prison warder keeping dangerous knifers, rapists and muggers from our doors at night are all engaged in a mysterious conspiracy to curtail our liberty. Refusing to recognise the obvious - that in a society without any constraints the weak would inevitably be exposed to attack, mockery and neglect - Foucault saw all restraint and all convention, as essentially sinister". [1]

So think on and do so in the total certainty that you have infinitely more to fear from Zuckerberg, Bezos and Pichai Sundararajan than from any kind of nightmare New Zealand government you could possibly conceive of.

[1] From A N Wilson's "Our Times". Any half-decent local library will have a copy.

[Willy Nilly]

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
government conjures up the image of a threat. Here it is plainly:

If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.

The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses. It does until it doesn't.
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice. So in the end, what's the difference?

[James Christophers]

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.

Then in that one single vault, you're straight back to the conspiracist Foucault. Presumption becomes preconception becomes presumption - an endless less-than-virtuous (in my view) circle. Is this what you mean to imply?

Post by Willy Nilly
The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses.

That's not what my first para states or implies. I said government acts within its democratically agreed mandate, and even then only within the bounds of practicality. And anyway, what may "acting reasonably and responsibly" to one man may well be egregiously unacceptable to another, the very stuff of politics and the sometimes terrible compromises that have to be tolerated if conclusive "in the common good" actions are to be honestly legislated and put into effect. Give a little, take a little - the art of being seen to compromise in good faith.

However, with politics so self-evidently being politics, and self-interest being self-interest these two inconvenient facts of life are always lurking the wings ready to compromise the best of good intentions, even the best of politicians(!). Cynical it may sound, but is it really so extraordinary, then, that we witness the politician's attitude when weighing in the balance a fellow mortals' rightful wellbeing and their own chance of re-election?

Post by Willy Nilly
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.

However justifiably, admirably a government may define or present itself, I doubt if any truly democratically elected government would claim infallibility as one of its prime qualities. In fact, I can recall no occasion when this claim has been made by any democracy except, latterly, by corrupted proxy in the deluded persona of Donald Trump whose demented authoritarian exceptionalism stands as a salutary warning to any democrat anywhere in this world who truly values his freedoms.

Post by Willy Nilly
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice.

So in the end, what's the difference?

Intent.

[Rich80105]

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.

Can you give an example where that has happened and in fact there was
no threat?
Clearly the possibility of infection by covid-19 is a threat; indeed
most New Zealanders accept that the siginificant actions taken were
justified.

Post by Willy Nilly
The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses. It does until it doesn't.
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice. So in the end, what's the difference?

If the problem you identify is as significant as you appear to believe
it is, there will be a number of examples from say the last decade -
can you describe say 2 or 3 of them?

[James Christophers]

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.

Can you give an example where that has happened and in fact there was
no threat?

Willy doesn't have to or need to. His paragraph begins with the conditional, "If" which requires no further expanding on since it presents a possible scenario, not one based on factual events.

Post by Rich80105
Clearly the possibility of infection by covid-19 is a threat; indeed
most New Zealanders accept that the siginificant actions taken were
justified.

That much is known and acknowledged, so there's no further genuine argument to be had there nor any justification for further expanding on it.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly
The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses. It does until it doesn't.
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice. So in the end, what's the difference?

If the problem you identify is as significant as you appear to believe
it is, there will be a number of examples from say the last decade -
can you describe say 2 or 3 of them?

First, explain why Willy needs to or should. The elements and principles of the issue(s) remain as they are, having already been dealt with. Any attempt to further extend through individual dissection of individual cases is, I reckon, dead-end boredom-relief to no good purpose.

Because, in no time at all you'll be way back again with Seddon and Holyoake and the the way both gentlemen are, by some obscure reasoning, reponsible for Covid-19 having pitched up uninvited at our door.

[Rich80105]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 21:05:10 -0800 (PST), James Christophers

Post by James Christophers

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.

Can you give an example where that has happened and in fact there was
no threat?

Willy doesn't have to or need to. His paragraph begins with the conditional, "If" which requires no further expanding on since it presents a possible scenario, not one based on factual events.

To some it is clear that "the government is allowed to take away our
rights in an emergency" - although that may depend on what is
considered a "right". For example free passage along our roads was
restricted by Auckland being in level 2 - was that taking away our
rights? The bit I was wanting an example of is where a government may
have created an "emergency" in order to achieve a removal of a
"right." I could have been more clear . . .

Post by James Christophers

Post by Rich80105
Clearly the possibility of infection by covid-19 is a threat; indeed
most New Zealanders accept that the siginificant actions taken were
justified.

That much is known and acknowledged, so there's no further genuine argument to be had there nor any justification for further expanding on it.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly
The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses. It does until it doesn't.
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice. So in the end, what's the difference?

If the problem you identify is as significant as you appear to believe
it is, there will be a number of examples from say the last decade -
can you describe say 2 or 3 of them?

First, explain why Willy needs to or should. The elements and principles of the issue(s) remain as they are, having already been dealt with. Any attempt to further extend through individual dissection of individual cases is, I reckon, dead-end boredom-relief to no good purpose.
Because, in no time at all you'll be way back again with Seddon and Holyoake and the the way both gentlemen are, by some obscure reasoning, reponsible for Covid-19 having pitched up uninvited at our door.

[James Christophers]

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 21:05:10 -0800 (PST), James Christophers

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.

Can you give an example where that has happened and in fact there was
no threat?

Willy doesn't have to or need to. His paragraph begins with the conditional, "If" which requires no further expanding on since it presents a possible scenario, not one based on factual events.

To some it is clear that "the government is allowed to take away our
rights in an emergency" - although that may depend on what is
considered a "right". For example free passage along our roads was
restricted by Auckland being in level 2 - was that taking away our
rights?

Very unlikely. A lawful regulation, not an Act, was temprarily introduced in good faith to help tackle the Covid-19 crisis.

It pays to get the terminology right. 'Remove' and 'take away' are too vague and non-specific to have any meaning when speaking about legalities. Even TV news gets this one wrong nine times out of ten, and it is nothing but dumb laziness on the part of the media's vocabulary-poor who are allowed free rein to spout such stunted prose by those who should, but plainly don't, know better. (Thus that great lowest-common-denominator and sub-basement intellectual leveller, the NCEA.)

In the case you cite, 'temporarily suspend' would be appropriate.

Post by Rich80105
The bit I was wanting an example of is where a government may
have created an "emergency" in order to achieve a removal of a
"right." I could have been more clear . .

The government'' lawyers would have put paid to any such misguided attempt at the outset. That's what they're paid for. So your query falls.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Rich80105
Clearly the possibility of infection by covid-19 is a threat; indeed
most New Zealanders accept that the siginificant actions taken were
justified.

That much is known and acknowledged, so there's no further genuine argument to be had there nor any justification for further expanding on it.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly
The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses. It does until it doesn't.
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice. So in the end, what's the difference?

If the problem you identify is as significant as you appear to believe
it is, there will be a number of examples from say the last decade -
can you describe say 2 or 3 of them?

First, explain why Willy needs to or should. The elements and principles of the issue(s) remain as they are, having already been dealt with. Any attempt to further extend through individual dissection of individual cases is, I reckon, dead-end boredom-relief to no good purpose.
Because, in no time at all you'll be way back again with Seddon and Holyoake and the the way both gentlemen are, by some obscure reasoning, reponsible for Covid-19 having pitched up uninvited at our door.

[Rich80105]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 22:18:05 -0800 (PST), James Christophers

Post by James Christophers

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 21:05:10 -0800 (PST), James Christophers

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.

Can you give an example where that has happened and in fact there was
no threat?

Willy doesn't have to or need to. His paragraph begins with the conditional, "If" which requires no further expanding on since it presents a possible scenario, not one based on factual events.

To some it is clear that "the government is allowed to take away our
rights in an emergency" - although that may depend on what is
considered a "right". For example free passage along our roads was
restricted by Auckland being in level 2 - was that taking away our
rights?

Very unlikely. A lawful regulation, not an Act, was temprarily introduced in good faith to help tackle the Covid-19 crisis.
It pays to get the terminology right. 'Remove' and 'take away' are too vague and non-specific to have any meaning when speaking about legalities. Even TV news gets this one wrong nine times out of ten, and it is nothing but dumb laziness on the part of the media's vocabulary-poor who are allowed free rein to spout such stunted prose by those who should, but plainly don't, know better. (Thus that great lowest-common-denominator and sub-basement intellectual leveller, the NCEA.)
In the case you cite, 'temporarily suspend' would be appropriate.

Post by Rich80105
The bit I was wanting an example of is where a government may
have created an "emergency" in order to achieve a removal of a
"right." I could have been more clear . .

The government'' lawyers would have put paid to any such misguided attempt at the outset. That's what they're paid for. So your query falls.

Indeed, but it would have been good for Willy to have come to that
conclusion.

Post by James Christophers

Post by Rich80105

Post by Rich80105
Clearly the possibility of infection by covid-19 is a threat; indeed
most New Zealanders accept that the siginificant actions taken were
justified.

That much is known and acknowledged, so there's no further genuine argument to be had there nor any justification for further expanding on it.

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly
The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses. It does until it doesn't.
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice. So in the end, what's the difference?

If the problem you identify is as significant as you appear to believe
it is, there will be a number of examples from say the last decade -
can you describe say 2 or 3 of them?

First, explain why Willy needs to or should. The elements and principles of the issue(s) remain as they are, having already been dealt with. Any attempt to further extend through individual dissection of individual cases is, I reckon, dead-end boredom-relief to no good purpose.
Because, in no time at all you'll be way back again with Seddon and Holyoake and the the way both gentlemen are, by some obscure reasoning, reponsible for Covid-19 having pitched up uninvited at our door.

[James Christophers]

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 22:18:05 -0800 (PST), James Christophers

Post by James Christophers

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 21:05:10 -0800 (PST), James Christophers

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.

Can you give an example where that has happened and in fact there was
no threat?

Willy doesn't have to or need to. His paragraph begins with the conditional, "If" which requires no further expanding on since it presents a possible scenario, not one based on factual events.

To some it is clear that "the government is allowed to take away our
rights in an emergency" - although that may depend on what is
considered a "right". For example free passage along our roads was
restricted by Auckland being in level 2 - was that taking away our
rights?

Very unlikely. A lawful regulation, not an Act, was temprarily introduced in good faith to help tackle the Covid-19 crisis.
It pays to get the terminology right. 'Remove' and 'take away' are too vague and non-specific to have any meaning when speaking about legalities. Even TV news gets this one wrong nine times out of ten, and it is nothing but dumb laziness on the part of the media's vocabulary-poor who are allowed free rein to spout such stunted prose by those who should, but plainly don't, know better. (Thus that great lowest-common-denominator and sub-basement intellectual leveller, the NCEA.)
In the case you cite, 'temporarily suspend' would be appropriate.

Post by Rich80105
The bit I was wanting an example of is where a government may
have created an "emergency" in order to achieve a removal of a
"right." I could have been more clear . .

The government'' lawyers would have put paid to any such misguided attempt at the outset. That's what they're paid for. So your query falls.

Indeed, but it would have been good for Willy to have come to that
conclusion.

Maybe.

The better the contributor prepares his argument - (that's if he actually has one, dearie me!) - the more effectively and efficiently he can prosecute it.

Again, words matter. So does their ordering, manner of phrasing and, most of all, the soundness of the reasoning behind them **as potentially interpreted by the recipient** (crucial). But, as ever, beware the fallacious wannabe sophist who will pervert and divert the topic - his own, even - to meet his compulsion to domineer at all costs.

[Nellie the Elephant]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 14:16:00 -0800 (PST), James Christophers

Post by James Christophers

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 22:18:05 -0800 (PST), James Christophers

Post by James Christophers

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 21:05:10 -0800 (PST), James Christophers

Post by Rich80105

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.

Can you give an example where that has happened and in fact there was
no threat?

Willy doesn't have to or need to. His paragraph begins with the conditional, "If" which requires no further expanding on since it presents a possible scenario, not one based on factual events.

To some it is clear that "the government is allowed to take away our
rights in an emergency" - although that may depend on what is
considered a "right". For example free passage along our roads was
restricted by Auckland being in level 2 - was that taking away our
rights?

Very unlikely. A lawful regulation, not an Act, was temprarily introduced in good faith to help tackle the Covid-19 crisis.
It pays to get the terminology right. 'Remove' and 'take away' are too vague and non-specific to have any meaning when speaking about legalities. Even TV news gets this one wrong nine times out of ten, and it is nothing but dumb laziness on the part of the media's vocabulary-poor who are allowed free rein to spout such stunted prose by those who should, but plainly don't, know better. (Thus that great lowest-common-denominator and sub-basement intellectual leveller, the NCEA.)
In the case you cite, 'temporarily suspend' would be appropriate.

Post by Rich80105
The bit I was wanting an example of is where a government may
have created an "emergency" in order to achieve a removal of a
"right." I could have been more clear . .

The government'' lawyers would have put paid to any such misguided attempt at the outset. That's what they're paid for. So your query falls.

Indeed, but it would have been good for Willy to have come to that
conclusion.

Maybe.
The better the contributor prepares his argument - (that's if he actually has one, dearie me!) - the more effectively and efficiently he can prosecute it.
Again, words matter. So does their ordering, manner of phrasing and, most of all, the soundness of the reasoning behind them **as potentially interpreted by the recipient** (crucial). But, as ever, beware the fallacious wannabe sophist who will pervert and divert the topic - his own, even - to meet his compulsion to domineer at all costs.

An important point James, hopefully Rich80105 will read it and learn
from it.

[Willy Nilly]

Again, words matter. So does their ordering, manner of phrasing and, most =
of all, the soundness of the reasoning behind them **as potentially interpr=
eted by the recipient** (crucial).

So very true, one must step out of one's own skull and read your
writings as others would do -- sometimes a very different, unintended,
message or slant emerges. This is a hard-acquired skill which
directly boosts the essential attribute to "Know Thyself".

[Gordon]

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.
The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses. It does until it doesn't.
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice. So in the end, what's the difference?

The ballot box ruling okay.

[George Black]

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.
The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses. It does until it doesn't.
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice. So in the end, what's the difference?

And so far every few days some-one somewhere in or near Auckland sets
the 'panic' off again and people in the South Island have to scan their
whereabouts and get tests.
James is one of the things as to why we have the governments we have

[James Christophers]

Post by George Black

Post by Willy Nilly

Always implicit in the concept of 'Human rights' is the expectation by the =
individual that the government shall, as its prime duty and mandate, defend=
and protect them from harm, but while also expecting and accepting that th=
is can only be within the limits of what is practicable.

Your whole posting is interesting, but just to focus on your above
premise which launched it. What you are omitting is when the
If the government is allowed to take away our rights in an emergency,
then the government will create emergencies to achieve that.
The error in your argument, James, is your premise that the government
is, and will always be, acting reasonably and responsibly in
evaluating threats and creating responses. It does until it doesn't.
Yes, we have a great system and great precedents here in New Zealand,
and far more of a historical basis to trust our government (compared
with others). But that doesn't make our government infallible.
Competence is the key -- our rights will be destroyed just as
completely by incompetent government assessment & administration, than
if they'd done it with malice. So in the end, what's the difference?

And so far every few days some-one somewhere in or near Auckland sets
the 'panic' off again and people in the South Island have to scan their
whereabouts and get tests.
James is one of the things as to why we have the governments we have

You, George, are just one more "thing as to why we have the governments we have".

You only have to expand your thinking a smidgeon for this inconvenient truth to dawn on you.

Go on, George, dare to give it a try just this once!

[Gordon]

Post by Willy Nilly
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/436956/govt-faced-with-competing-advice-on-mandatory-mask-use-chris-hipkins
Chris Hipkins, our Covid-19 Response Minister, talks about Cabinet
"Compulsion brings a number of issues with it including how do you
enforce that, where does the burden lie, does it lie with the
individual, does it lie with the business, what do you do with people
who don't have phones, who don't use phones regularly. We've got to
work through all of those things."
Anybody notice anything missing in Hipkins' laundry list? Such as a
little thing known as *human rights*? Not on Labour's radar, it
seems. To them, Cabinet has all the rights, we the people have none.
When is the next election? Good Lord it's long time away.

Another Troll from Willy.

What has been missing in my view regarding this covid-19 response is one of
it being a war. We need to search and destory. New batalions are always
trying to infilrate behind enemy lines.

the united against Covid needs a few more words around it, to give people
some enthausism to be on guard.

As has been pointed out the Tracer app was lean and mean at the start, did
the job of where you had been, but it has become bloated over time. It is
now getting to the stage where one could have had their coffee while the
tracer app is booting up. It is trying to do too much.