eeeh... *hand-wavy* i question slightly their ability to not be influenced at least a Bit by the politicians if the general public weren't watching closely.
but nothing like on the scale the US would like, true. and given the number and extremity of stuff ups in this case, the end point would probably be the same. heh.
it is my understanding that everyone still ends up with Charles.
and republicanism... blech.
you know how bad our parliament is already, right?
now imagine that, except that the same force which create it ALSO apply to the head of state.
the monarchy serves at Least one purpose (i'd argue it serves more, but even most republicans can see this one): while it exists, no other entity can attain ultimate moral authority within the country. no coup can attain true legitimacy unless it has the support of the monarchy ( not the nebulous 'crown' but the monarch themselves) And the people.
... it's been too long since i read it, so i'm not explaining so well.
now, if we could get rid of Parliament, THAT i could get behind. well, if someone had a better idea to replace it, anyway. ... or at least the current lot who either benefit from how things work or are stuck on 'tradition' and reform the system somewhat.
heck, i could make a case for ending the union on the basis that if we had our own monarch who actually had to LIVE here and who's livelihood depended on the country doing well they might actually be motivated to stomp on the insanity and bad ideas that come out of parliament, rather than rubber-stamping them. (the current system requiring a majority to form a coalition results in 'we'll help you pass your stupid-bad-idea law if you help us pass our stupid-bad-idea law' agreements being more common than they otherwise would be, for one thing. why do they even NEED a coalition? the monarch appoints whoever of the available candidates is best for each ministerial job and otherwise parliament as a whole is a single entity. if you try to pass a law and can't pass it it's a BAD LAW, not a sign that the system doesn't let you govern properly. i don't know where the idea that a sub-set of parliament which can't just pass whatever the hell it want's is a Bad thing came from... that particular bit of stupid will never make sense to me.)
ehh, could still happen if he was (supposedly) here when he did it.
but...
yeah, that'd just be a cruelty to animals charge, which is significant, rather than a 'harming endangered species' type charge, which...
...
...
well, it's not considered as serious as molesting children, i suppose.
naaah. that's a European habit, that is. (not to mention such monarchs should be from the germanies. Tradition, that is!)
We simply didn't give up our claim to the monarchy when we stopped being subordinate to Britain.
(entertainingly, there IS a Kingdom of New Zealand. ... it's not the same thing as the Country of New Zealand, as it contains a few other random odd bits and pieces in the area as well.)
It's more a case of the British Monarchy collecting titles than of NZ borrowing the monarch.
(and we Could have a separate monarch. it raises SERIOUS legitimacy issues for the entire government if said monarch is not a descendent of Queen Victoria though. and there's a bunch of treaties with other commonwealth dominions about changing the succession laws. it can be done, but there's a few other things that have to be sorted out if it is... (basically amounts to them all making the same changes at the same time. that's why it was such a big deal recently when the succession laws were changed to no longer give male heirs priority over female heirs. EVERY country in personal union under the queen had to agree to it for it not to cause issues. (more in the 'oh, God, now we've got to untangle THIS mess because someone CHANGED SOMETHING!' sort than the actual Problem sort.))
diplomatic pressure won't affect the courts much. less than internal pressure from the public in the other direction, at least.
and they Cannot afford to be seen as puppets of the crown, as the risk of that was Exactly why the general public were Against the removal of the monarch/privy council as the highest court of appeal in favour of the internal high court. the government of the day rammed it through Anyway, (sick of loosing cases that actually got that far when they pulled stupid shit, basically.), but the High Court loses all legitimacy the moment it starts being swayed by Anything other than evidence and the law as written at the time of the event.
and with it would fall the government which was influenceing it.
the current government here is Already in a precarious position, being known mostly for not having a valid plan and for outright lying to the public over and over again. (whatever idiot came up with the idea of claiming that Raising GST (a consumer Sales Tax, which is a regressive tax, hits those with a lower income much harder) and Lowering Income Tax (a progressive tax, in this case lowered most for the richest people) would somehow leave the Average New Zealander better off should be shot. not least because they were using the 'average income' as a basis for that. ... the average income which is about double what at LEAST half the population makes. ... let's not even get into the nonsense that is the claims about asset sales.)
the New Zealand population is usually pretty laid back about stuff, but when you actually get them riled up (and this case is doing it) they tend to react quite significantly... and often in strange ways. (why riot when you can drive a tractor up parliament's steps and block the door with it? how exactly do you respond to the situation of the Highschool Students getting so pissed off with the constant disruption caused by disputes between the government and teachers that large numbers of said Students walk out on the school across the country at once? they didn't just go home, either, but mostly stayed in large groups being very obvious. (catching most officials completely by surprise and sort of in support of the teachers but mostly in support of getting their Classes back onto some sort of regular schedule. ring-leaders were a mix of the more disruptive and disreputable sorts and those who are normally the most well behaved model students. hilariously, at my own school at the time, a lot of the teachers knew it was going to happen. the principle, who the students generally agreed was rubbish, either didn't have a clue or had no idea how bad it was going to be)
then there's protest marches half the length of the country or so, and if you go back a bit actual riots and the like.
the whole anti-nuclear thing too. seriously, do you really expect a country that was willing to give up the protection offered by a treaty with the US against the (far more real and worrying possibility at the time than the US's worries about a communist 'domino effect') possibility of a resurgent Japanese empire in the name of a Principle (one adopted, hilarious, by ACCIDENT originally, though it proved too popular to be easily abandoned after the fact) and go so far as to forbid said country's ships (specifically the nuclear armed ones) entry to it's ports as well as the use of nuclear power in the country at all and has resisted all attempts to break that stance since, is going to Accept, no matter what it's government claims, such an offence on something far more concrete and immediate?
go back about a hundred years now and you got actual wars. it's far enough in the past that it's unlikely to happen again, but not so far that people don't remember it as an option.
and that's before even getting INTO the legalities and the idea of a fair hearing. nevermind JUSTICE.
Justice must be swift, fair, and precise, neither punishing the innocent nor freeing the guilty, though letting the occasional guilty man free is better than punishing an innocent. likewise, there's a distinct limit to how much precision and fairness can be set aside for swiftness, but past a point a lack of swiftness leaves justice unserved.
there is nothing fair, just, Or Legal, about what you suggest. At All.
it is, in fact, the sort of thing wars are fought over, were it not for the large ocean in between and massive power difference between the nations in question.
... ... ok, this rant got sort of out of hand. oh well.
Foolhardiness, not Foolhardishness. and idiocy, probably. also, stupidity, evil, incompetent greed, corruption...
i like arsehattery, personally (body part, not donkey. no americanisms for you.). evil AND stupid.
thing to remember, of course, is that our (NZ) government, or at least those bits under the Prime Minister and National Party's control, are going along with said arsehattery. at least the Courts take the responsibilities of their jobs seriously.
one branch of three working well is an improvement on most places, it seems.
now if only the governor would actually do their damn job we could properly disentangle the executive and the legislature and perhaps get them working again.
(the current arrangement has the exectutive mostly chosen by a combination of cronyism and what amounts to bribery. exactly the situation the restrictions on who can be chosen for those posts was designed to Prevent, but the GG's habit of picking the PM based on who can get majority support in parliament (ie, the leader of the largest coalition, which is a nonsense concept in it's own right when you realise that the legislature is supposed to be a single entity made of individuals, not a 'government' and an 'opposition'.) and then just accepting whoever the PM wants as ministers. the ministerial positions are sold for coalition support to force through bad laws (which Should be rejected) and to form large enough coalitions to get the leader of the largest party within said coalition the PM's spot. It's stupid. would Almost be better to just promote the top level of the bureaucracy up to the ministerial posts. Almost.)
that puts to rest some fears i had about the consequences of the removal of the Monarch themselves (usually represented by the privy council) being removed as final court of appeal, too.
(another major change snuck through and only announced after the fact. mostly because our government got sick of LOSING when cases made it that far. hehe.)
at that point i'd put money on 'not disastrous' Anyway (assuming the amount required was small :P). not due to any faith that it'd actually happen, just on the off chance that i might get money out of it.
good thing i don't actually gamble at all, really.
the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction in Canada.
they don't have jurisdiction HERE either (New Zealand).
doesn't seem to stop them.
(and aren't they supposed to be limited to domestic stuff? they seem to be getting involved with NZ issues a lot lately. our exchanges already have taps in them ('oh, but we won't USE them, don't worry') which they helped set up... oh, but of Course they didn't leave themselves a back door. eesh. how stupid are the people in charge here? (don't answer that. we already know the answer is 'very' and/or 'corrupt.))
note: if he was Actually a threat holed up in a easily defended area with guns etc. NZ AOS have been known to call in military AFVs (22mm or so auto-cannons as main armament).
they then, to my understanding, again demand the surrender of the individual in question. the idea being that, at that point, said individual comes out un-armed and with his hands viable or the auto-cannon starts firing (and it'd chew straight through the walls quite happily). though, admittedly, in that instance i believe there was no one else in the building. the incident where this took place involved an individual who had apparently been shooting at random people/objects on the street from inside the house.
That guy didn't get roughed up as much as Kim Dotcom apparently did. (mind you, i think there were reporters and associated cameras on-site by that point. not sure though.)
no.
no it's not.
not unless they changed how they do things recently.
(besides, if they were going to do anything of the sort, we have our own intelligence agency(s?) for that sort of thing. no need to pin it on the cops.)
... which makes one wonder why there was even a SWAT team there, as last i knew NZ did not have SWAT.
there is the Armed Offenders Squad, but it fits in differently. (not least in that it has the ability to pick up actual Military Units as subordinate attachments to get it's job done if needed. ... an NZLAV which is quite capable of chewing the building you're hiding in to bits just to get at you and willing to do so if necessary is a good incentive to surrender, ya know?)
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: love it
(other than that i know nothing on the subject, but meh *shrugs*)
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: @3
though they often produce indistinguishable results, it's true.
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: oh
but nothing like on the scale the US would like, true. and given the number and extremity of stuff ups in this case, the end point would probably be the same. heh.
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and republicanism... blech.
you know how bad our parliament is already, right?
now imagine that, except that the same force which create it ALSO apply to the head of state.
the monarchy serves at Least one purpose (i'd argue it serves more, but even most republicans can see this one): while it exists, no other entity can attain ultimate moral authority within the country. no coup can attain true legitimacy unless it has the support of the monarchy ( not the nebulous 'crown' but the monarch themselves) And the people.
... it's been too long since i read it, so i'm not explaining so well.
now, if we could get rid of Parliament, THAT i could get behind. well, if someone had a better idea to replace it, anyway. ... or at least the current lot who either benefit from how things work or are stuck on 'tradition' and reform the system somewhat.
heck, i could make a case for ending the union on the basis that if we had our own monarch who actually had to LIVE here and who's livelihood depended on the country doing well they might actually be motivated to stomp on the insanity and bad ideas that come out of parliament, rather than rubber-stamping them. (the current system requiring a majority to form a coalition results in 'we'll help you pass your stupid-bad-idea law if you help us pass our stupid-bad-idea law' agreements being more common than they otherwise would be, for one thing. why do they even NEED a coalition? the monarch appoints whoever of the available candidates is best for each ministerial job and otherwise parliament as a whole is a single entity. if you try to pass a law and can't pass it it's a BAD LAW, not a sign that the system doesn't let you govern properly. i don't know where the idea that a sub-set of parliament which can't just pass whatever the hell it want's is a Bad thing came from... that particular bit of stupid will never make sense to me.)
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but...
yeah, that'd just be a cruelty to animals charge, which is significant, rather than a 'harming endangered species' type charge, which...
...
...
well, it's not considered as serious as molesting children, i suppose.
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re:
We simply didn't give up our claim to the monarchy when we stopped being subordinate to Britain.
(entertainingly, there IS a Kingdom of New Zealand. ... it's not the same thing as the Country of New Zealand, as it contains a few other random odd bits and pieces in the area as well.)
It's more a case of the British Monarchy collecting titles than of NZ borrowing the monarch.
(and we Could have a separate monarch. it raises SERIOUS legitimacy issues for the entire government if said monarch is not a descendent of Queen Victoria though. and there's a bunch of treaties with other commonwealth dominions about changing the succession laws. it can be done, but there's a few other things that have to be sorted out if it is... (basically amounts to them all making the same changes at the same time. that's why it was such a big deal recently when the succession laws were changed to no longer give male heirs priority over female heirs. EVERY country in personal union under the queen had to agree to it for it not to cause issues. (more in the 'oh, God, now we've got to untangle THIS mess because someone CHANGED SOMETHING!' sort than the actual Problem sort.))
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re:
diplomatic pressure won't affect the courts much. less than internal pressure from the public in the other direction, at least.
and they Cannot afford to be seen as puppets of the crown, as the risk of that was Exactly why the general public were Against the removal of the monarch/privy council as the highest court of appeal in favour of the internal high court. the government of the day rammed it through Anyway, (sick of loosing cases that actually got that far when they pulled stupid shit, basically.), but the High Court loses all legitimacy the moment it starts being swayed by Anything other than evidence and the law as written at the time of the event.
and with it would fall the government which was influenceing it.
the current government here is Already in a precarious position, being known mostly for not having a valid plan and for outright lying to the public over and over again. (whatever idiot came up with the idea of claiming that Raising GST (a consumer Sales Tax, which is a regressive tax, hits those with a lower income much harder) and Lowering Income Tax (a progressive tax, in this case lowered most for the richest people) would somehow leave the Average New Zealander better off should be shot. not least because they were using the 'average income' as a basis for that. ... the average income which is about double what at LEAST half the population makes. ... let's not even get into the nonsense that is the claims about asset sales.)
the New Zealand population is usually pretty laid back about stuff, but when you actually get them riled up (and this case is doing it) they tend to react quite significantly... and often in strange ways. (why riot when you can drive a tractor up parliament's steps and block the door with it? how exactly do you respond to the situation of the Highschool Students getting so pissed off with the constant disruption caused by disputes between the government and teachers that large numbers of said Students walk out on the school across the country at once? they didn't just go home, either, but mostly stayed in large groups being very obvious. (catching most officials completely by surprise and sort of in support of the teachers but mostly in support of getting their Classes back onto some sort of regular schedule. ring-leaders were a mix of the more disruptive and disreputable sorts and those who are normally the most well behaved model students. hilariously, at my own school at the time, a lot of the teachers knew it was going to happen. the principle, who the students generally agreed was rubbish, either didn't have a clue or had no idea how bad it was going to be)
then there's protest marches half the length of the country or so, and if you go back a bit actual riots and the like.
the whole anti-nuclear thing too. seriously, do you really expect a country that was willing to give up the protection offered by a treaty with the US against the (far more real and worrying possibility at the time than the US's worries about a communist 'domino effect') possibility of a resurgent Japanese empire in the name of a Principle (one adopted, hilarious, by ACCIDENT originally, though it proved too popular to be easily abandoned after the fact) and go so far as to forbid said country's ships (specifically the nuclear armed ones) entry to it's ports as well as the use of nuclear power in the country at all and has resisted all attempts to break that stance since, is going to Accept, no matter what it's government claims, such an offence on something far more concrete and immediate?
go back about a hundred years now and you got actual wars. it's far enough in the past that it's unlikely to happen again, but not so far that people don't remember it as an option.
and that's before even getting INTO the legalities and the idea of a fair hearing. nevermind JUSTICE.
Justice must be swift, fair, and precise, neither punishing the innocent nor freeing the guilty, though letting the occasional guilty man free is better than punishing an innocent. likewise, there's a distinct limit to how much precision and fairness can be set aside for swiftness, but past a point a lack of swiftness leaves justice unserved.
there is nothing fair, just, Or Legal, about what you suggest. At All.
it is, in fact, the sort of thing wars are fought over, were it not for the large ocean in between and massive power difference between the nations in question.
... ... ok, this rant got sort of out of hand. oh well.
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re:
i like arsehattery, personally (body part, not donkey. no americanisms for you.). evil AND stupid.
thing to remember, of course, is that our (NZ) government, or at least those bits under the Prime Minister and National Party's control, are going along with said arsehattery. at least the Courts take the responsibilities of their jobs seriously.
one branch of three working well is an improvement on most places, it seems.
now if only the governor would actually do their damn job we could properly disentangle the executive and the legislature and perhaps get them working again.
(the current arrangement has the exectutive mostly chosen by a combination of cronyism and what amounts to bribery. exactly the situation the restrictions on who can be chosen for those posts was designed to Prevent, but the GG's habit of picking the PM based on who can get majority support in parliament (ie, the leader of the largest coalition, which is a nonsense concept in it's own right when you realise that the legislature is supposed to be a single entity made of individuals, not a 'government' and an 'opposition'.) and then just accepting whoever the PM wants as ministers. the ministerial positions are sold for coalition support to force through bad laws (which Should be rejected) and to form large enough coalitions to get the leader of the largest party within said coalition the PM's spot. It's stupid. would Almost be better to just promote the top level of the bureaucracy up to the ministerial posts. Almost.)
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
that puts to rest some fears i had about the consequences of the removal of the Monarch themselves (usually represented by the privy council) being removed as final court of appeal, too.
(another major change snuck through and only announced after the fact. mostly because our government got sick of LOSING when cases made it that far. hehe.)
On the post: Baldaur Regis' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Game Developers Concerned About A Potentially Closed Windows 8
Re: Re:
good thing i don't actually gamble at all, really.
On the post: Video Of Dotcom Raid Revealed, As NZ Police Admit It Was 'Over The Top'
Re: Re: Maybe the most damning part
On the post: Video Of Dotcom Raid Revealed, As NZ Police Admit It Was 'Over The Top'
Re: Re:
they don't have jurisdiction HERE either (New Zealand).
doesn't seem to stop them.
(and aren't they supposed to be limited to domestic stuff? they seem to be getting involved with NZ issues a lot lately. our exchanges already have taps in them ('oh, but we won't USE them, don't worry') which they helped set up... oh, but of Course they didn't leave themselves a back door. eesh. how stupid are the people in charge here? (don't answer that. we already know the answer is 'very' and/or 'corrupt.))
On the post: Video Of Dotcom Raid Revealed, As NZ Police Admit It Was 'Over The Top'
Re:
they then, to my understanding, again demand the surrender of the individual in question. the idea being that, at that point, said individual comes out un-armed and with his hands viable or the auto-cannon starts firing (and it'd chew straight through the walls quite happily). though, admittedly, in that instance i believe there was no one else in the building. the incident where this took place involved an individual who had apparently been shooting at random people/objects on the street from inside the house.
That guy didn't get roughed up as much as Kim Dotcom apparently did. (mind you, i think there were reporters and associated cameras on-site by that point. not sure though.)
On the post: Google's App Crackdown Results In Indie Developer Smackdown
Re:
not quite the same thing, all in all.
On the post: Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?
Re:
no it's not.
not unless they changed how they do things recently.
(besides, if they were going to do anything of the sort, we have our own intelligence agency(s?) for that sort of thing. no need to pin it on the cops.)
On the post: Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?
Re: Hate to be a party pooper.....but.....
somewhat important. (i don't really have the time or inclination to be chasing up all the linked articles.)
On the post: Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?
Re: Re: Romney
On the post: Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?
Re:
On the post: Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?
Re: Re:
there is the Armed Offenders Squad, but it fits in differently. (not least in that it has the ability to pick up actual Military Units as subordinate attachments to get it's job done if needed. ... an NZLAV which is quite capable of chewing the building you're hiding in to bits just to get at you and willing to do so if necessary is a good incentive to surrender, ya know?)
Next >>