And no wonder - she is undoubtedly one MP they don't want talking more
than she has to: see two articles on different topics:

First hiding reports until after the election: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/96433693/coastal-erosion-report-urges-immediate-action

and then this showing typical Nat arrogance and disregard for laws http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11916458

" . . .National is proposing to give police powers to search gang
members without a warrant. Allowing police the power to march through
people's houses at their will is a power that if targeted against
anybody else (the parents of wealthy school children, for instance)
would be seen as completely outrageous.

But as Bennett said, 'some people have fewer rights than others.' And
that's a statement that should trouble us, particularly when the Prime
Minister supports it by saying, 'it's good that we don't have a
written constitution it's enabled the country to deal with issues in a practical way.'

But this isn't even practical. Far from it. Bennett said on Twitter
that 'scumbag gangs don't deserve protection'. But the majority of
drug dealers aren't gang members, so why do those scumbags have
greater rights than those in a gang?

Also, who constitute a gang member may sound like an easy question,
but it isn't. I've been confused for one by police because of my
research associations - and I can tell you that having the police
target you unjustly is incredibly unpleasant. Furthermore, what if
your son is in a gang and he's staying with you, can your house then
be searched without a warrant? How far does the discretion extend? How
many times can a gang member's house be searched without finding
anything before such searches are stopped?

That much power vested in police without judicial oversight is
concerning but because it says 'gang' fewer people will be concerned:
at least that's what Bennett is backing on.

We are rarely challenged by human rights in New Zealand on easy
issues, we are challenged by difficult ones. That is when our
commitment to them is tested. If we are prepared to run roughshod over
them in situations like this, I fear what happens when we face a
crisis, such as an act of terrorism.

The proposed law will not have any meaningful impact on the drug trade
in New Zealand. But it does speak to who we are as a country. Paula
Bennett ought be called out in the strongest possible terms for this
cynical politicking.

Our country, and the principles of Western justice that underpin it,
are more valuable than a political party's advantage on the hustings.

It's not that I think we shouldn't vote for Paula Bennet. I think she
should resign. . ."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 3/09/2017 10:55 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

And no wonder - she is undoubtedly one MP they don't want talking more
than she has to: see two articles on different topics:

First hiding reports until after the election: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/96433693/coastal-erosion-report-urges-immediate-action

and then this showing typical Nat arrogance and disregard for laws http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11916458

" . . .National is proposing to give police powers to search gang
members without a warrant. Allowing police the power to march through people's houses at their will is a power that if targeted against
anybody else (the parents of wealthy school children, for instance)
would be seen as completely outrageous.

But as Bennett said, 'some people have fewer rights than others.' And
that's a statement that should trouble us, particularly when the Prime Minister supports it by saying, 'it's good that we don't have a
written constitution it's enabled the country to deal with issues in a practical way.'

But this isn't even practical. Far from it. Bennett said on Twitter
that 'scumbag gangs don't deserve protection'. But the majority of
drug dealers aren't gang members, so why do those scumbags have
greater rights than those in a gang?

Also, who constitute a gang member may sound like an easy question,
but it isn't. I've been confused for one by police because of my
research associations - and I can tell you that having the police
target you unjustly is incredibly unpleasant. Furthermore, what if
your son is in a gang and he's staying with you, can your house then
be searched without a warrant? How far does the discretion extend? How
many times can a gang member's house be searched without finding
anything before such searches are stopped?

That much power vested in police without judicial oversight is
concerning but because it says 'gang' fewer people will be concerned:
at least that's what Bennett is backing on.

We are rarely challenged by human rights in New Zealand on easy
issues, we are challenged by difficult ones. That is when our
commitment to them is tested. If we are prepared to run roughshod over
them in situations like this, I fear what happens when we face a
crisis, such as an act of terrorism.

The proposed law will not have any meaningful impact on the drug trade
in New Zealand. But it does speak to who we are as a country. Paula
Bennett ought be called out in the strongest possible terms for this
cynical politicking.

Our country, and the principles of Western justice that underpin it,
are more valuable than a political party's advantage on the hustings.

It's not that I think we shouldn't vote for Paula Bennet. I think she
should resign. . ."

Yup. Just like Taxindas well muzzled attack dog what's his face.....

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)