The Prime Minister is being sued over the lockdown, with two applicants making multiple claims at the High Court in Auckland today – including it being "all for her political gain".
They also asked for a writ of habeas corpus, which seeks to rule an imprisonment unlawful and release the applicants. The two men, who are known to each other, argued the alert level 4 lockdown has left them unlawfully detained and is not worth the economic cost compared with the low number of Covid-19 related deaths. The pair have interim name suppression after citing death threats and safety risks. The first applicant, who is currently serving a home detention sentence, told Justice Mary Peters "the whole thing's a joke" and it has become a "panic-demic, not a pandemic" – noting his sentence allows him to leave the house between 8am and 5pm each day. He said Ardern had no grounds to enact the lockdown. He also alleged she had conspired with Sir Stephen Tindall to ruin the economy and the United Nations Secretary-General should have been consulted instead. The man ultimately compared Ardern to Hitler and the lockdown to the holocaust.
"I don't want my democratic rights to live in a society taken away on a whim." The man said the nine Covid-19 related deaths that had been confirmed at the time showed the lockdown was not in line with one modelling scenario that predicted up to 80,000 deaths in New Zealand. He alleged his views were shared by "a large portion" of the population and said the Crown must have been aware the lockdown would be legally challenged "or thought New Zealand were sheep". The man objected to Justice Peters' question to substitute Ardern for Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield, who enacted the lockdown order. "This is really the Ardern show," the man said. "Ardern has cried wolf and been found out," he said. The other applicant alleged more people would now die from other illnesses, like cancer, because they will not be able to get diagnosed due to hospital resources being focused on the fight against Covid-19. "The Prime Minister made the wrong decision … all for her political gain", he said. Crown lawyer Austin Powell, who was virtually representing Ardern, said there were significant limits on the freedom of movement for everyone, but the restrictions did not amount to detention. He said there were no limitations to stay a specific distance from one's home or requirements to report on movements.
Powell said Bloomfield had done what the law required of him. He argued against the first applicant's claim the wording of the Health Act should limit the lockdown to certain persons. "The law allows [Bloomfield] to impose those limits on persons – so it can include all persons." Justice Peters reserved her decision, but said it would be given urgency.
=========================================================
Poll: Should drivers retake the theory test every 10 years?
Drivers get where they need to go, but sometimes it seems that we are all abiding by different road rules (for example, the varying ways drivers indicate around a roundabout).
Do you think drivers should be required to take a quick driving theory test every 10 years?
Vote in the poll and share any road rules that you've seen bent! 😱
-
49.5% Yes
-
48.6% No
-
1.9% Other - I'll share below
Here's Thursday's thinker!
I am lighter than air, but a hundred people cannot lift me. What am I?
Do you think you know the answer to our daily riddle? Don't spoil it for your neighbours! Simply 'Like' this post and we'll post the answer in the comments below at 2pm.
Want to stop seeing riddles in your newsfeed?
Head here and hover on the Following button on the top right of the page (and it will show Unfollow) and then click it. If it is giving you the option to Follow, then you've successfully unfollowed the Riddles page.
Why make picking up reserved library books harder? What do you think? Challenge: Write the last stanza for the first poem attached below.
Once books are reserved in Auckland Libraries books, when they are available no longer go alphabetically by customer but instead go into a Holds pickup shelf number based presumably somehow on when each book needs to be picked up by.
I had two books reserved that arrived on two different days in the Blockhouse Bay Library and hence each book has a different shelf number. Hard to find unless you knew the shelf number in the notification email. Even if you knew the shelf number I found myself three books by the same author on the two shelf numbers.
More recently yesterday a book I reserved was on a different shelf number than was specified in my notification email (see image below).
Sadly it is clear from library staff that a numerical system for reserves is here to stay.
I suggest that so that all books for each person has the same shelf number, the shelf number becomes the last digit of a person's library card (0-9).
Within each shelf number a book is found under the day the reserve arrives in the library (01 to 31, hopefully the same date the email is sent).
Since a customer appears to have 10 days to pick up a book, ten days of the month would appear to be required at any time (for each digit 0-9).
Once there are 10 days used the next day's reserves could go back at the beginning of the shelf number after any remaining books not collected (hopefully none) are removed (along with the old day number and the new day number (01 to 31) inserted) after the last day available and future days' books remaining moved forward to make room.
Each day number (01-31) would appear once for each shelf number (0-9) before the first book on that day- perhaps cover an old withdrawn book with paper with each day number on the spine?
When a reserved book arrives in the library the last digit of the library card could be placed on a piece of paper in the book to be removed when it is put on the shelf, to be recycled the next day.
What do you think?
See the image below and page 3 below for a letter appearing in the Western Leader on 9 September:
www.neighbourly.co.nz...
Loading…
