A legal opinion on the media pre-trial agreement

The media pre-trial agreement probably breaches s.14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act with jurisdiction established under section 3(b). It seems to pre-empt what a Judge may rule regarding reporting of a trial.

The media groups fall within two grounds set out in s.3(b) in that the media…

  • (1) performs a public function and
  • (2) is empowered by Broadcasting legislation.

Section 3 (b) gives jurisdiction and then allows s.14 to be engaged. Section 3 reads: quote.

3 Application
This Bill of Rights applies only to acts done—

(a) by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; or

(b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. end of quote.

It would now be laughable to even think of getting the Human Rights ‘Corbynista’ Commission (no remedy or opinion would be issued) or the New Zealand Law Society (the erstwhile guardians of the rule of law) to do anything since both are so debased and Blue-pilled.

Is that not a very sad state of affairs for human rights and the law in New Zealand? The reporting on Alt Right opinions is necessary so they can be analysed and rejected and the public informed.

The collusive media agreement is an example of what John Milton called “Prelatism” and he was referring to the Inquisition which required an imprimatur for books to be published.

The Puritan like mindset of the media mirrors that of the 17th century Commonwealth puritans about whom Milton was writing. Milton has been vindicated by history while today’s censors will face the justifiable opprobrium of history.

31%
×