Corona Virus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arapiles

That article would barely pass at Law School. The fact that this wasn't imprisonment is shown by the fact that people were in fact able to leave their houses and therefore be fined, noting that you can't freely leave a prison but instead have to break out. And, generally speaking, prisoners don't get to go out for jogs or ride their bikes so long as they stay within X kilometres of their prison.

Relevantly, from the time of the Magna Carta onwards, quarantine powers existed in England and that included locking down and isolating whole villages. The "arbitrary" issue is dealt with by the fact that directives were made under a specific law.

---

Just read the article again. They had to use the word ' detained ' , because imprisonment without a trial would be illegal. And the definition of arbitrarily explains it's use. So to my untrained eye, and even less trained mind, it would seem the good Professor knows his stuff.

arbitrarly.
"without restraint in the use of authority; autocratically."

A more recent declaration of principle is found in

section 22

of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which says, “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS

I think that once a few of our "on the spot" fines have found their way into court we might find that some of our State laws on this subject are not as robust as the cops would have had us believe.

---

Yes, but Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. [ I think [bighmmm]] What was the charge for the on the spot fines? obviously a State issue, and I do not condone what some of those fined did, but is the law clear on this. And are Australians protected from arbitrary fines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scarry

So looks like you will be in the dog kennel again for a few nights.
I just hope it won't be too cold,we will be thinking of you[biggrin]

You will have to blame Ian for it all.[bigsad]

---

I might have already. All she said was, " Ian Who?"


I mean, how could one try & answer that one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4bee

I might have already. All she said was, " Ian Who?"


I mean, how could one try & answer that one?

---

You know,the Ian that has that huge truck......[bigrolf]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob10

Yes, but Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. [ I think [bighmmm]] What was the charge for the on the spot fines? obviously a State issue, and I do not condone what some of those fined did, but is the law clear on this. And are Australians protected from arbitrary fines?

---

We don't have a Bill of Rights (but we should) and I think the fines here were for (and I may be wrong) "breaching a Public Health order".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob10

Just read the article again. They had to use the word ' detained ' , because imprisonment without a trial would be illegal. And the definition of arbitrarily explains it's use. So to my untrained eye, and even less trained mind, it would seem the good Professor knows his stuff.

arbitrarly.
"without restraint in the use of authority; autocratically."

A more recent declaration of principle is found in

section 22

of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which says, “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.”

---

The problem is a series of elisions - he's started off referring to a principle of the Common Law that you can't be arbitrarily imprisoned i.e., without legitimate authority. No argument there. The Kiwis have enshrined this in their Bill of Rights as a right against "detention" - which arguably has a wider meaning than "imprisonment". So then, unless it's defined somewhere else, the question becomes what's "detention" mean? The author then slides again by asserting that simply being required to stay indoors in a lockdown is "detention" meaning imprisonment meaning breaches the Common Law principle - notwithstanding that no-one is actively restraining or imprisoning you. So, net result of his argument is that being required to self-quarantine is imprisonment and therefore breaches a basic principle of the Common Law. Then he suggests that would only be OK after they issued a lockdown instruction under a specific Act. I just think that it's all bit of a stretch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob10

Yes, but Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. [ I think [bighmmm]] What was the charge for the on the spot fines? obviously a State issue, and I do not condone what some of those fined did, but is the law clear on this. And are Australians protected from arbitrary fines?

---

Yep, no Bill of Rights. The one that's not clear to me is how the States were locking their borders ..... I thought that right was removed by Federation and the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

Is that your polite, understated way of saying. "Natural News is a far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website."?

That is how it is usually described.

Rationalwiki goes as far as saying that even other quacks think it is a quack site.

---

LOL, yes, pretty much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4bee

I might have already. All she said was, " Ian Who?"


I mean, how could one try & answer that one?

---

Small (lots of) unmarked bills will buy my silence. [bigwhistle]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Yep, no Bill of Rights. The one that's not clear to me is how the States were locking their borders ..... I thought that right was removed by Federation and the Constitution.

---

Can't close a state border to residents of other states only, that's unconstitutional but you can order a border closure as long as you also include residents of the state as well. That is, as long as the border closure is non discriminatory with regards to a persons residency, the border can be closed to the movement of people. Unsure if you can restrict trade via a border closure though.

That's how it's been explained in WA.