The Court’s decision was released on the 21st of February 2023. Justice Mellon took a dismissive view of the declarations being sought, saying “They are expressed in general and abstract terms that deprive them of usefulness”, and that was the extent of the consideration given to them.
Despite the decision being a total rejection of what was sought, Justice Mellon has done the public a service by reminding us of a simple truth: Parliament is sovereign and can pass any law it likes, regardless of how unjust or unfair it is.
This case was about the taking of ratepayer-owned assets without fair compensation and without the consent of the owners of those assets. Justice Mellon stated quite clearly that it may be unjust for Parliament to confiscate assets and take away rights, but it’s lawful for the central government to do so because they make the laws!
What if the case had challenged a decision of Parliament to reintroduce the death penalty? What if Parliament had passed a law establishing concentration ("re-education") camps for those who do not act in the "public interest”, or those who have a particular religious or political belief, or are of a particular gender/age/race, or refuse to take a medical procedure?
Presumably, the judge’s decision would have been no different, because in the words of Justice Mellon, “Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of our law.” One presumes Justice Mellon and her judicial colleagues would turn a blind eye to any social injustice if the law permitted it.
The conclusion we can draw from this is don't look to the Courts to redress unfair laws – it’s just false hope and a waste of money.
This highlights a gaping problem with our democracy. The public has no legal protections against a Parliamentary majority that abuses the rights of others.
Thank you, Justice Mellon, for reminding us of that alarming reality and exposing the need for laws to protect the sovereignty of the individual against 61 members of Parliament.
The full decision of the Court may be seen here >>>
4 comments:
Just shows you how little control, short of a civil rebellion, the public has against a bunch of lying extremists who promise one thing, then on getting elected do something completely different.
As with the NZ Bill of Rights Act, which proved useless in the event of government coercion with Covid mandates, we can't rely on ANY of the laws and acts which we assume protect us.
As Frank says, as long as you get 61 like-minded nutters together then all bets are off!
While I'm loath to say it, it does appear to be a case of 'the tyranny of the majority.'
The answer is if you ever are in court on a stupid charge; demand a trial by jury. And then hope for a jury that will see the idiocy of the charge and the law and find in your favour. I believe it is called jury nullification.
So Justice Mellon would support the lawfulness of 19th century confiscations of Maori land? Why then have we paid $billions to the iwi whose ancestors had been seditious, failed to keep to what they had agreed to under Te Tiriti and thereby lost land through specific acts of parliament?
Erosion of principles and civil rights often starts small then, when largely unopposed, will keep growing. Censorship continues to grow, now including 'hate speech', alleged 'fake news', flirtatious comments at work and almost anywhere else, and anything that certain groups claim to feel uncomfortable or emotionally unsafe about. Treating people as guilty unless they convince a Court of their innocence started in family law, moved on to sexual crime allegations in criminal Courts, then to 'proceeds of crime' law that allows the state to take assets without ever having to prove anything to any standard of proof at all. Overriding the Bill of Rights Act 1990 has been done repeatedly by successive governments whenever those 'Rights' are inconvenient to them. That attitude now progresses to the state being about to steal local ratepayers' assets for water infrastructure, further eroding the meaning of 'ownership'. What's next?
Post a Comment