Minister of Parliament reverses Court decision to allow Marina

who is chatting on SOLO Chat

The Free Radical

Subscribe or Purchase

Current Issue Contents

Who's new

Poll

Election 2008: Who Will Win?

Obama by a landslide

12%

McCain by a landslide

19%

Obama comfortably

14%

McCain comfortably

27%

Either narrowly

29%

Total votes: 59

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Minister of Parliament reverses Court decision to allow Marina

Submitted by Duncan Bayne on Tue, 2006-03-07 04:26.

For fourteen (yes, 14) years, a group of New Zealanders has been battling through the Court system in a bid to build a Marina. Finally ... success! The Environment Court approved their application.

However, they're still being thwarted, because the Conservation Minister, Chris Carter, has stepped in and vetoed the Court decision (!) because, he says, "it would destroy a salt marsh and effect local Maori".

Minister confirms veto of Whangamata marina

Conservation Minister Chris Carter has vetoed the construction of a $10 million marina in Whangamata.

Mr Carter said he did not agree with an Environment Court ruling backing the development as it would destroy a salt marsh and effect local Maori.

The decision confirms the likely outcome reported by the Herald last week.

...

The chairman of the Whangamata Marina Society, Mick Kelly, said this week he was stunned the minister was looking to veto the proposal.

"The court findings were heavily weighted in our favour. We had 27 days of court hearing time, then at the 11th hour he goes and talks to disaffected parties for half a day, where he is bombarded with misinformation that has gone unchallenged," he said.

...

And as usual, the sheeple involved argue against the justification of the veto - not speaking out against the fact that a fascist fuckwit like Carter is allowed to veto a Court decision in the first place!!!!! Sad

To quote H. L. Mencken, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

Well, all of New Zealand just got it good and hard from Carter.

And they deserved it - every man jack who voted Labour, National, ACT, NZ First ... in fact, those who voted for ANY party other than the Libz, which was the only party that pledged to abolish the RMA, the vile law that made this veto possible.

I'm having the kind of day where I almost think that political activism against the tide of fascism is unjust, because it's saving idiots from the consequences of their own actions.

Perhaps I shouldn't blog when I'm pissed off.

As always politicians come

Submitted by Duncan Bayne on Mon, 2006-04-03 22:41.

As always politicians come up with abstract laws like the RMA that require some effort to get to grips with and therefore slip through the net quite easily. Then they proceed to justify subsequent laws because it is policy and they promptly refer to the abstract laws behind it.

Well put, very well put ... they use the laws like a shield ("the RMA says we can do that!") so they don't have to examine or justify the underlying principles ("the RMA says plants have intrinsic value").

"We have a zero tolerance policy for child safety" In discussion with councilors it was explained that anything was permitted in order to make Waitakere City the safest city for kids.

Not only is that scary in terms of what they're capable of doing in the name of safety, it's scary to think of the type of children who'll be raised in such an environment: cotton-wool wrapped wusses most likely Sad

The point is... Who decided on that policy?

Depends how far back you want to go Smiling National wrote the original RMA, & there are still many RMA fans amongst the National party. But the RMA is only the final expression of the underlying philosophy, which is intrinsic value.

As for who is responsible for that monstrosity, the idea that something can have value without reason, or someone to value it ... I honestly don't know who started that one off.

But it's a very pervasive idea, and popular with those who don't have the facts on their side - because it renders facts irrelevant. You can't debate or quantify intrinsic value, because it's a nonsensical anti-concept.

Keep going dude.

Thanks for the encouragement! Smiling I'll keep on keeping tabs on the bastards ... they only get away with half of what they get away with because no-one notices or speaks up ...

Abstract laws justify the stupid rulings

Submitted by gone on Mon, 2006-04-03 20:24.

As always politicians come up with abstract laws like the RMA that require some effort to get to grips with and therefore slip through the net quite easily. Then they proceed to justify subsequent laws because it is policy and they promptly refer to the abstract laws behind it.

Case in point. Filling in the beautifull Huruhuru Waterhole with concrete in West Auckland because in the past decade 3 kids drowned. Reason stated by the council: "We have a zero tolerance policy for child safety" In discussion with councilors it was explained that anything was permitted in order to make Waitakere City the safest city for kids.

The point is... Who decided on that policy? We need watch dogs like you Duncan to point out the obvious to mere salary slaves like me. It is a pitty that people (and news papers) get tired of constant truths and switch off.

Keep going dude.