It's okay. The Kiwi government consulted the Maoi tribal elders and they just finished their approval chants & ceremonies. The island spirits are with you!
It's very vague with its 'for the purposes of this act', at least for someone not familiar with NZ 'law'. But my guess is that this is for submissions to the government for the approval of a given medicine, like the documents you sign with "I certify that all this is true under penalty of perjury".
By all means, take more boosters if you want to advocate for the gov so much. The government never properly confirmed the vaccines were faulty instead of twisting your brain to pretzel to justify your stance that you are going to continue splitting the hair. After all, the rumour of vaccines being harmful is just right wing conspiracy theory, isn't it?
The original guy you were replying to were talking about injection and you suddenly become a lawyer by literally reading from a paper even most politicians don't really follow to the letter. Don't even need to be a psychic to tell you are a slippery debater that will pull every tricks in the book to justify your stance. I mean seriously take the booster since government never denied the vaccine was faulty. If you believe in the government so much, that's the least you could do instead of being a slimy duplicitous faggot.
And the paper which is just a general guideline related to the medicine approved by the govetrnement and you doing that is you trying to larp as armchair lawyer as if we give a shit about the laws now. I mean if it takes you to quit being annoying karen about it.
What's more? Me being in Australia means, it's going to eventually affect my country, too, I have more reasons to give a shit about what NZ does. You? Where even are you? When you are going to advocate for shit that doesn't even concern you, I got every right to be infuriated by your nonchalant dipshit response.
National Consistency: Prohibiting local authorities from restricting gene technology to ensure uniform regulations
Local Authority Restrictions: The New Zealand bill proposes to remove local authorities' ability to restrict the use of gene technology, ensuring a nationally consistent approach. In contrast, Australia's regulatory framework involves coordination with state and territory legislation, which can lead to regulation variations across different regions.
Read between the line. They're saying local governors, mayors, city councils, or police can't ban or refuse to impose a national "mandate."
But just out of curiosity ... "if" they were going to enforce a top-down mandate where nobody could opt-out, how do you think they'd phrase it? Do you think these New Speak agencies would say it out loud, or do you think they'd leave just enough ambiguity for them to say "The law doesn't say we can, but it also doesn't say we can't." Because that's exactly what they did the last time and it worked for them. Just curious.
Anyhow, tyrants, like school bullies, only speak one language. A bully will keep coming back to steal your lunch unless and until you punch that faggot's clock. That's one lesson that follows throughout life. The People of Australia and New Zealand have made their feelings about all this very clear, but their tyrants keep coming back to bully them.
Not really 'want', but OK. It's pretty straightforward that is what it means.
But just out of curiosity ... "if" they were going to enforce a top-down mandate where nobody could opt-out, how do you think they'd phrase it?
If you're going to ask me to draft a law for New Zealand, for which there is no precedent, I'm obviously not going to be able to do that. But obviously, the law would have to be very clear, obvious, and non-vague to be used in such a draconian manner and to infringe on people's autonomy.
The People of Australia and New Zealand have made their feelings about all this very clear
They have? I've been rather disappointed. They were fine with people being kidnapped without trial and put into 'quarantine' camps for weeks, even without the government proving that they had contracted the virus.
You're partially right. But these insane policies were, as far as I know, wildly popular - at least in the beginning. You can't be running quarantine camps without a great measure of public support. Not even the European tyrannies did that.
That wasn't public "support," it was compliance based on fear and ignorance of the situation. That changed very quickly to the where people were protesting in clashes with the police, who responded by beating people back into their homes and imposing curfews afterward. It became very quickly that gov't had no support once people figured out the situation and demanded an end to lockdowns.
You needed a massive public outcry before you idiots voted in the people doing this. Stopping this single law won't fix shit. You need a new government before anything can be fixed. So stop voting like idiots, and things will immediately improve. But since that would require liberals taking responsibility for their lives, they will not be stopping any time soon.
And to anyone saying that voting doesn't matter, Trump just proved that you can take that opinion and shove it back up your ass where it came from.
It's funny that Trump wins in '24 and suddenly no one cares or talks about '20 being stolen anymore.
Despite it being unclear what concrete safeguards the RINOs were able to achieve to "stop the steal" this time around other than being "too big to rig".
Well one of the safeguards was the army of lawyers the RNC had on hand on election night in swing states to file emergency injunctions against unmarked mystery trucks full of ballots with 0 chain of custody showing up to be counted.
Another safeguard was getting rid of a lot of the illegal drop boxes in places where they were illegal.
You don't think millions of previous Biden "voters" just vanished voluntarily, do you?
"Right wing" by European standards, which isn't right wing at all. They are all so far to the left, that they don't even consider the Democrat party of the US to be on the left.
It's okay. The Kiwi government consulted the Maoi tribal elders and they just finished their approval chants & ceremonies. The island spirits are with you!
Are maoi the ones that rape and killed off an entire rival tribe where literally only a dozen or so descendants of that rival tribe are left?
Whoa, bruh! Cool it with the racism, 'kay? "It's their culture." 🙄
You can also get five years in prison if you say anything negative about the injections:
https://x.com/lizgunnnz/status/1880158057675780599
All Commonwealth vassals (Canada, AUS, NZ, etc.) are cucked!
It's very vague with its 'for the purposes of this act', at least for someone not familiar with NZ 'law'. But my guess is that this is for submissions to the government for the approval of a given medicine, like the documents you sign with "I certify that all this is true under penalty of perjury".
Buddy, did you not see how AUS/ NZ handled themselves during the lockdowns?
You're giving them far too much credit than they deserve. These are confirmed tyrannical regimes.
Where am I giving them credit? I'm just looking at the law.
By all means, take more boosters if you want to advocate for the gov so much. The government never properly confirmed the vaccines were faulty instead of twisting your brain to pretzel to justify your stance that you are going to continue splitting the hair. After all, the rumour of vaccines being harmful is just right wing conspiracy theory, isn't it?
You got all that from "you're misreading what this law says"?
You should sell your ESP skills at country fairs, you will easily become a millionaire.
The original guy you were replying to were talking about injection and you suddenly become a lawyer by literally reading from a paper even most politicians don't really follow to the letter. Don't even need to be a psychic to tell you are a slippery debater that will pull every tricks in the book to justify your stance. I mean seriously take the booster since government never denied the vaccine was faulty. If you believe in the government so much, that's the least you could do instead of being a slimy duplicitous faggot.
You're just ranting now. Reading from a paper? I referred to the law that the OP link claims forces vaccines and restricts free speech.
And the paper which is just a general guideline related to the medicine approved by the govetrnement and you doing that is you trying to larp as armchair lawyer as if we give a shit about the laws now. I mean if it takes you to quit being annoying karen about it.
What's more? Me being in Australia means, it's going to eventually affect my country, too, I have more reasons to give a shit about what NZ does. You? Where even are you? When you are going to advocate for shit that doesn't even concern you, I got every right to be infuriated by your nonchalant dipshit response.
So your response is: "I'm angry, don't tell me that what I'm angry about is just not true, because i want to be angry."
If you're claiming that THIS LAW does X and Y, it's relevant whether this law does X or Y.
Maybe it won't because this is BS. There's plenty of real stuff in Australia to get angry about, like those charming Covid internment camps.
Taking anything Liz Gunn says seriously.
Where is the part forcing people? Even the article slamming it only talks about authorization for the medicine's use.
Read between the line. They're saying local governors, mayors, city councils, or police can't ban or refuse to impose a national "mandate."
Report (see pg. 3-4)
Isn't the obvious reading that no local government can ban a GMO?
Okay, if that's how you want to read it.
But just out of curiosity ... "if" they were going to enforce a top-down mandate where nobody could opt-out, how do you think they'd phrase it? Do you think these New Speak agencies would say it out loud, or do you think they'd leave just enough ambiguity for them to say "The law doesn't say we can, but it also doesn't say we can't." Because that's exactly what they did the last time and it worked for them. Just curious.
Anyhow, tyrants, like school bullies, only speak one language. A bully will keep coming back to steal your lunch unless and until you punch that faggot's clock. That's one lesson that follows throughout life. The People of Australia and New Zealand have made their feelings about all this very clear, but their tyrants keep coming back to bully them.
Not really 'want', but OK. It's pretty straightforward that is what it means.
If you're going to ask me to draft a law for New Zealand, for which there is no precedent, I'm obviously not going to be able to do that. But obviously, the law would have to be very clear, obvious, and non-vague to be used in such a draconian manner and to infringe on people's autonomy.
You can look to this enacted but never-implemented law in Austria.. You would have to prove your coronavirus vaccination during routine checks or be given a fine.
They have? I've been rather disappointed. They were fine with people being kidnapped without trial and put into 'quarantine' camps for weeks, even without the government proving that they had contracted the virus.
There were all-out protests in the streets and clashes with police near the end. That's when they were finally allowed to leave their homes again.
You're partially right. But these insane policies were, as far as I know, wildly popular - at least in the beginning. You can't be running quarantine camps without a great measure of public support. Not even the European tyrannies did that.
That wasn't public "support," it was compliance based on fear and ignorance of the situation. That changed very quickly to the where people were protesting in clashes with the police, who responded by beating people back into their homes and imposing curfews afterward. It became very quickly that gov't had no support once people figured out the situation and demanded an end to lockdowns.
You needed a massive public outcry before you idiots voted in the people doing this. Stopping this single law won't fix shit. You need a new government before anything can be fixed. So stop voting like idiots, and things will immediately improve. But since that would require liberals taking responsibility for their lives, they will not be stopping any time soon.
And to anyone saying that voting doesn't matter, Trump just proved that you can take that opinion and shove it back up your ass where it came from.
It's funny that Trump wins in '24 and suddenly no one cares or talks about '20 being stolen anymore.
Despite it being unclear what concrete safeguards the RINOs were able to achieve to "stop the steal" this time around other than being "too big to rig".
Well one of the safeguards was the army of lawyers the RNC had on hand on election night in swing states to file emergency injunctions against unmarked mystery trucks full of ballots with 0 chain of custody showing up to be counted.
Another safeguard was getting rid of a lot of the illegal drop boxes in places where they were illegal.
You don't think millions of previous Biden "voters" just vanished voluntarily, do you?
You know NZ has a right wing govt at the moment, right?
"Right wing" by European standards, which isn't right wing at all. They are all so far to the left, that they don't even consider the Democrat party of the US to be on the left.
LOL
Lmao even
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Do not advocate for murders.
It's hard to feel sorry for the Kiwis. They voted for this.
Literally nothing in this says citizens can be forced to take medicine or vaccines.
You guys are retarded headline readers.