Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Cam Slater: Do We Have Dunces on the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court has added even more judicial meddling to their long list of idiotic decisions. Yesterday they decided that the Bill of Rights is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. I’m not kidding.

An appeal to lower the voting age to 16 has been accepted by New Zealand’s highest court – but only Parliament can decide if the law will change.

In the Supreme Court today, Justice Ellen France and Justice O’Regan ruled that an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal to decline the case of the Make it 16 group should be set aside.

Justice France told the court it was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights to not allow 16-year-olds to vote, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned.

There were tears from members of the Make it 16 group in court, who have been campaigning for years to have the age lowered.

Justice France said not allowing 16-year-olds to vote was “inconsistent with the bill of rights to be free from discrimination on the basis of age”.
NZ Herald
12 Electoral rights

Every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years—

(a) has the right to vote in genuine periodic elections of members of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage and by secret ballot; and

(b) is qualified for membership of the House of Representatives.
Bill of Rights Act

Are our Supreme Court members dunces, or just being deliberately provocative?

These clowns have just declared that the Bill of Rights is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps we need to look at the make-up of the Supreme Court.

Naturally, our “youth adjacent” Prime Minister and chief virtue signaller has jumped on board this, clinging to this electoral lifeline like Michael Jackson clung to small boys. They clearly have nothing else important, like…oh, I don’t know…uhmmm…like inflation to worry about, or perhaps growing the economy. No, let’s rush a bill into parliament to let children vote!

These morons clearly haven’t thought through the consequences. If 16-year-olds can vote then surely it stands to reason they can then be tried as adults for crimes they commit. Then there are all the other age-restricted activities, benefits and entitlements that likewise could be challenged. A good example of that would be the pension…why 65?…why not 16 for that too? How about purchasing alcohol and cigarettes? That should be lowered too; after all, if 16-year-olds are sensible enough to vote then surely they’ll be sensible enough to drink and smoke responsibly.

Of course, this generation that now wants to vote are also the same ones who can’t even decide what gender they are. If they can’t work out whether they are Arthur or Martha then they really shouldn’t be voting.

They are also the generation that thinks the world is about to end through climate change…well what is it, the world is going to end and therefore there is no point in voting, or it isn’t and so they now want a vote?

This woke rubbish needs to stop.

Next, they’ll want voting done in primary schools with crayons and pictures of politicians.

Whatever happened to ‘Children should be seen and not heard’?

Cam Slater is a New Zealand-based blogger, best known for his role in Dirty Politics and publishing the Whale Oil Beef Hooked blog, which operated from 2005 until it closed in 2019. This article was first published HERE


Fred H said...

So the idiot judges consider the Ram Raiders are mature enough to consider all options provided by different Parties and vote in a sensible manner ! I really think these judges should be retired with immediate effect (and not allowed to vote on the grounds of their mental health issues).

Ray S said...

Perfect summary!

God save us from idiots of all ages.

DeeM said...

If this clown of a judge thinks the Bill of Rights should be free from discrimination on the basis of age then why not have infants voting. Surely, setting a new lower age is just discriminating against those under 16.
It makes no sense, and clearly sense is something that many of our top judges lack these days.

Does it actually state that the NZ Bill of Rights must not discriminate by age, or is this just another judge making it up as they go along?

You desperately hope that people chosen to make very important decisions that all of us are then held to are highly competent, logical, impartial and fair.
I wonder how many of our supreme court judges would meet those criteria. Certainly not this one.

EP said...

I understand there may be one or two learned in the law, and capable of rational thought, but more noddies are being appointed all the time. It is really frightening. i fervently wish them ill.

Doug Longmire said...

Following the Supreme Court's logic in this case, every person over the age of (?) 2 or 3 or whatever must also be able to vote.

Robert Arthur said...

Many judicial findings can be predicted by applying the teast "What will likeley generate the most ongoing employment for the legal industry?" The status quo is seldom the answer. I think much of the profession ranks with the car mechanics who or used to manufacture defects for fixinng. Personally I think there should be some sort of test for all voters. It is absurd that responsible thoughtful persons are cancelled by greater numbers of irrational often programmed morons.

Anonymous said...

NZ’s gagging courts have the most atrocious record (well documented) – they simply ignore not only the law, but the rule of law, inside court proceedings. If you ever thought gangsters were scary, imagine what it is like inside a gagging court where the judge acts completely unlawfully.

Anonymous said...

The Greens won’t be happy until sperm are voting