1688?
After posting the details of this case yesterday, one of the first emails back to me suggested that I go check my Statement of Claim for typos. Surely, the Bill of Rights 1688 wasn’t quite right…
Well, it is right and it’s an incredibly important piece of legislation. It’s one of the landmarks on the way from absolute rule to a civilised, constitutionally-limited government. Not PC has an excellent article explaining its history and relevance.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Except ours is a piddly, little, wimpy piece of legislation.
A “Bill of rights” that is not entrenched and includes a statement saying that the rights within may be “balanced” against the needs of the community?
Pah.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Craig D,
Don’t confuse the Bill of Rights 1688 with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The former is an important landmark in the history of liberal government. The latter is, as you say, “a piddly, little, wimpy piece of legislation” that has no teeth.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Too true, certainly agree.
I was referring solely to the 1990 act.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:23 am
[…] Young suggests that the only way to calm the waters will be to get out the chequebook. I, along with others, have said that paying it back isn’t enough. Labour knowingly stole public money to fund their election campaign, breaking the fundamental rules that separate liberal democracy from dictatorship, they refuse to admit fault even with overwhelming evidence against them, they have obfuscated and shamelessly tried to get their arms further into the till, they regard “honesty” as a political slogan with no real meaning, and they have issued threats against media outlets and opposition members who point out their misdeeds. […]