2 ms·

1) How do lockdowns to minimise deaths violate natural justice? 2) Refusing a reasonable request from an employer is grounds for termination in NZ employment l

1) How do lockdowns to minimise deaths violate natural justice? 2) Refusing a reasonable request from an employer is grounds for termination in NZ employment law. Asking people working with vulnerable people to be vaccinated against the disease causing that pandemic is a reasonable request. The only virtue signalling was from the nurses who martyred themselves on the altar of misinformation. 3) No, the Three Waters reforms aren't just handing control over critical infrastructure to Māori. In the proposed legislation, 50% of members of the new controlling entities will be representatives of relevant territorial authorities, 50% representatives of mana whenua, that is, relevant Māori tribes. [0] I can explain why the reforms are necessary if you like, but it's not directly relevant to the current discussion. The make-up of the new entities is in line with the constitutional principle of partnership between the Crown and Māori, derived from legal interpretations of, and attempts to reconcile, the differing texts of the Māori version of the Treaty of Waitangi and the English version. [1] [2] Remember that NZ is a common law country, so, like the UK, we have no explicit constitution, and previous legal decisions set the basis for further decisions, so our constitutionality law is shaped by legal precedent. The link you shared is misinformed at best, deliberate racebaiting misinformation at worst, there's a bit of that going around, and it's often expressed by people who grew up when racism against Māori was commonplace. The man who operates the website you linked runs a hydraulics firm, he's not a constitutional lawyer, just so you know. I'm happy to explain more about our country if you're looking to learn more. [0]: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2022/0136/latest/LMS537724.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2022/0136/la... [1]: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/di... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_the_Treaty_of_Waitangi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_the_Treaty_of_Wa...

logicchains 4y ago
> 1) How do lockdowns to minimise deaths violate natural justice? To minimise _one form_ of death. If you locked everybody in their houses forever, nobody would die of car accidents, but more people would die of other things. All the studies now show that lockdowns achieved no reduction in overall mortality, they just delayed things a bit, and led to a bunch of other issues like increase in alcoholism/depression and significantly impaired childhood development.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  All the studies? Which ones?
Gareth321 4y ago
>1) How do lockdowns to minimise deaths violate natural justice? Controlling the bodily autonomy of another by way of coercion falls under every definition of natural justice I have ever read. Which one are you using which permits this? >2) Refusing a reasonable request from an employer is grounds for termination in NZ employment law. Asking people working with vulnerable people to be vaccinated against the disease causing that pandemic is a reasonable request. The only virtue signalling was from the nurses who martyred themselves on the altar of misinformation. I get that you support the government's decision. I am simply pointing out that firing hundreds of nurses during a global pandemic was a bad idea, conceived solely to exert power and control over a badly needed cohort of public health workers. >3) No, the Three Waters reforms aren't just handing control over critical infrastructure to Māori. In the proposed legislation, 50% of members of the new controlling entities will be representatives of relevant territorial authorities, 50% representatives of mana whenua, that is, relevant Māori tribes. [0] Your response amounts to "you're wrong, but yes you're right." Is it Orwell day today? You don't get to just call whatever you don't like "misinformation." You admit that an unelected group comprised of 50% of people specifically chosen for their race will be in charge of selecting the governing board of a public asset. You've made it very clear that you like the racial discrimination and attack on the fundamental pillars of democracy in New Zealand, but you don't get to gaslight anyone into believing it's not happening. If you want to follow Labour into hell, the least you will do is be honest about your intentions.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  > "you're wrong" You did say "effective control", which 50% isn't. > You don't get to just call whatever you don't like "misinformation." The title of the page you linked to is "THREE WATERS REFORM TO GIVE IWI/MĀORI DOMINATING INFLUENCE" - 50% is dominating? You think that co-governance directly attacks the pillars of NZ democracy? Funny, I thought that te Tiriti o Waitangi was the founding document of that nation, and that the principles of the Treaty are key to how we manage our democracy. Obviously we vastly differ in how we interpret NZ's bicultural foundational bones, you seem to view co-governance as a fundamental threat, I view it as the Crown actually doing what we said we'd do back in 1850, which I'm very much in support of. But then I also guess it depends on how you interpret kāwanatanga and tiro rangatiratanga. After all, NZ Europeans did promptly ignore the terms of the treaty, and go to war to steal land from the Māori, then confiscated some more land by force, even from iwi who were the Crown's allies in the New Zealand Wars, and made agreements to buy land, which provisions which were not honoured for over a century, in order to satisfy the demand from European colonists. Oh, and then there was the deliberate efforts by the Crown to suppress Māori culture, and to disrupt their way of life. I dunno, I just prefer it if our country was based on "treating the people who lived here first fairly". > I get that you support the government's decision. I am simply pointing out that firing hundreds of nurses during a global pandemic was a bad idea, conceived solely to exert power and control over a badly needed cohort of public health workers. Once again, failure to follow reasonable requests from an employer is grounds for termination. They failed to follow a reasonable request, they lost their jobs. Yes, nurses are needed, but nurses who are potential vectors for spreading Covid to people _who are in hospital for existing health problems_ are very much not needed. > conceived solely to exert power and control over a badly needed cohort of public health workers. That is just your subjective belief, unless you've sighted a policy document from the Minister of Health that says "Mwahaha, let's show those uppity nurses who's boss".

logicchains 4y ago

> 1) How do lockdowns to minimise deaths violate natural justice? To minimise _one form_ of death. If you locked everybody in their houses forever, nobody would die of car accidents, but more people would die of other things. All the studies now show that lockdowns achieved no reduction in overall mortality, they just delayed things a bit, and led to a bunch of other issues like increase in alcoholism/depression and significantly impaired childhood development.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
All the studies? Which ones?

Gareth321 4y ago

>1) How do lockdowns to minimise deaths violate natural justice? Controlling the bodily autonomy of another by way of coercion falls under every definition of natural justice I have ever read. Which one are you using which permits this? >2) Refusing a reasonable request from an employer is grounds for termination in NZ employment law. Asking people working with vulnerable people to be vaccinated against the disease causing that pandemic is a reasonable request. The only virtue signalling was from the nurses who martyred themselves on the altar of misinformation. I get that you support the government's decision. I am simply pointing out that firing hundreds of nurses during a global pandemic was a bad idea, conceived solely to exert power and control over a badly needed cohort of public health workers. >3) No, the Three Waters reforms aren't just handing control over critical infrastructure to Māori. In the proposed legislation, 50% of members of the new controlling entities will be representatives of relevant territorial authorities, 50% representatives of mana whenua, that is, relevant Māori tribes. [0] Your response amounts to "you're wrong, but yes you're right." Is it Orwell day today? You don't get to just call whatever you don't like "misinformation." You admit that an unelected group comprised of 50% of people specifically chosen for their race will be in charge of selecting the governing board of a public asset. You've made it very clear that you like the racial discrimination and attack on the fundamental pillars of democracy in New Zealand, but you don't get to gaslight anyone into believing it's not happening. If you want to follow Labour into hell, the least you will do is be honest about your intentions.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
> "you're wrong" You did say "effective control", which 50% isn't. > You don't get to just call whatever you don't like "misinformation." The title of the page you linked to is "THREE WATERS REFORM TO GIVE IWI/MĀORI DOMINATING INFLUENCE" - 50% is dominating? You think that co-governance directly attacks the pillars of NZ democracy? Funny, I thought that te Tiriti o Waitangi was the founding document of that nation, and that the principles of the Treaty are key to how we manage our democracy. Obviously we vastly differ in how we interpret NZ's bicultural foundational bones, you seem to view co-governance as a fundamental threat, I view it as the Crown actually doing what we said we'd do back in 1850, which I'm very much in support of. But then I also guess it depends on how you interpret kāwanatanga and tiro rangatiratanga. After all, NZ Europeans did promptly ignore the terms of the treaty, and go to war to steal land from the Māori, then confiscated some more land by force, even from iwi who were the Crown's allies in the New Zealand Wars, and made agreements to buy land, which provisions which were not honoured for over a century, in order to satisfy the demand from European colonists. Oh, and then there was the deliberate efforts by the Crown to suppress Māori culture, and to disrupt their way of life. I dunno, I just prefer it if our country was based on "treating the people who lived here first fairly". > I get that you support the government's decision. I am simply pointing out that firing hundreds of nurses during a global pandemic was a bad idea, conceived solely to exert power and control over a badly needed cohort of public health workers. Once again, failure to follow reasonable requests from an employer is grounds for termination. They failed to follow a reasonable request, they lost their jobs. Yes, nurses are needed, but nurses who are potential vectors for spreading Covid to people _who are in hospital for existing health problems_ are very much not needed. > conceived solely to exert power and control over a badly needed cohort of public health workers. That is just your subjective belief, unless you've sighted a policy document from the Minister of Health that says "Mwahaha, let's show those uppity nurses who's boss".