Tag Archives: Health Act 1956

What the military can legally do to the NZ public

Transcript included. Some pertinent information for you. Thanks to ‘A Closer Look’ YT channel.

A closer look

53 subscribers Let’s look at what force the NZ military is authorised to use against the public particularly regarding arrest, stopping vehicles and entering homes. It’s important to understand this for our own protection against tirrannee. A country’s Defence Force is meant to protect the nation and their interests against foreign threats. They will also support the public in an emergency but aren’t meant to use force against their own population or act as a policing force. The Defence Act 1990 sought to control this but loop holes are now being exploited through other acts to use the military against the New Zealand public. 1. Arrest: a. Quarantine: Under the Health Act 1956 a medical officer of health can arrest people attempting to leave quarantine and any person (including the military) can be used to assist them. This is why you see military managing quarantine facilities and able to detain people there. However, the only people who can be arrested are those who have entered New Zealand within 14 days or are confirmed to have an infectious disease. It doesn’t apply to anyone else so can’t be used to enforce general lockdown restrictions. b. Police Support: Under Section 51 of the Policing Act 2008 any person (including the military) can be asked to assist a constable in apprehending or securing a person or conveying them to a police station or other place. This means the military can use force against the public if they are physically located with a constable. If there’s no constable there then no force can be used. This occurred on the cordon for the Christchurch Earthquake where soldiers manning the cordon would detain people if directed by the police constable with them. 2. Entering homes: Under the civil defence emergency management act 2002 if a state of emergency is declared then the military can enter on and if necessary, break into any premises. Currently there is no state of emergency so the military have no authority to do this. However, if a state of emergency is declared nationally or locally then the military are allowed to forcibly enter your home if they believe it is “necessary for permitting or facilitating the carrying out of any urgent measure for the relief of suffering or distress”. This is a very general statement and could arguably be used to justify Covid-19 related activity. 3. Road blocks: The authority for the military to block roads is based on the same Act. Basically, unless there’s a state of emergency, roadblocks must be lead by police and the military are only supporting. However in a state of emergency the military can man roadblocks without the need for police. 4. Covid-19 enforcement officers: Under the rushed through Covid-19 public health response act the military can be appointed as enforcement officers and this allows them to search cars and property (excluding dwellings) but does not allow them to use force to do this. As at the time of this video being made the NZDF are not authorised as Covid-19 enforcement officers but this could change in the future. 5. Other situations: There are also other powers that only apply in unique situations. These are the physical enforcement of public health orders against specific individuals, powers in response to domestic terror acts and powers on a military base. If you’re not on a military base, committing an act of terrorism or have a public health order made against you by the courts then you don’t need to worry about these. Martial Law: There is a lot of misunderstanding about the terms martial law, military law and what it means for a country to be in this state so let’s explain it. Martial Law is brought into act when the governments and court are unable to function and so a military commander takes action to regulate society. Martial law has often been declared in communist countries to allow military force against the people such as in the Tee anne a min Square Massacre in China. However this has never occurred in New Zealand in modern times. As long as the New Zealand courts are functioning New Zealand is not in a state of Martial Law and the military can only do what the law allows them to. However, this isn’t much of a reassurance as the law provides extensive powers on the pretext of an emergency or pandemic and allows the military to enforce these. Martial Law should not be confused with the term “Military Law” which is the law that the Defence Force applies to its own soldiers to maintain discipline. It is based on the Armed Forces Discipline Act and has no authority over the general public. Summary 1. NZ is not in a state of martial law. 2. NZ military can only arrest you if: ◦ You are trying to leave quarantine; or ◦ They are with a police officer. 3. NZ military can forcefully enter your home but only in a declared state of emergency. 4. NZ military can conduct roadblocks but only with police or in a declared state of emergency.

When the “Cure” is more disruptive than the Virus … is our government acting lawfully, or has it over-reached?

from Sue Grey

The Epidemic Preparedness Act gives special powers to the Prime Minister when she is satisfied that the effects of an outbreak of a stated quarantinable disease (within the meaning of the Health Act 1956) are likely to disrupt or continue to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand (or stated parts of New Zealand) significantly.”

The irony, says Sue Grey, Co-leader of the NZ Outdoors Party and public rights lawyer, is that almost all of the disruption so far is from the government response, rather than from the virus.

https://www.outdoorsparty.co.nz/

How far can the government lawfully go?

This week’s further extension of Covid-19 level 4 restrictions by the NZ government has frustrated small businesses, families, patients waiting for medical treatment, outdoors people and constitutional lawyers alike.

Is our government acting lawfully, or has it over-reached? Has it acted on sound if shifting evidence, or has it been bamboozeled by media hype, and overreacted?

Is this massive social experiment in the best interests of the public of New Zealand, or has it been diverted by those with other agendas? Has the focus on “spreading the curve” and more recently on “eliminating” COVID-19 been proportionate to the original risk? Has the cure created more harm than the original risk, due to the social and economic effects, and the loss of our once cherished rights and freedoms?

Epidemic Preparedness Act

The government relies on three laws: A) The Epidemic Preparedness Act, B) Special powers in Part 3 of the Health Act; and C) the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act.

A: The Epidemic Preparedness Act

The Epidemic Preparedness Act at section 5, gives special powers to the Prime Minister: “With the agreement of the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare that he or she is satisfied that the effects of an outbreak of a stated quarantinable disease (within the meaning of the Health Act 1956) are likely to disrupt or continue to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand (or stated parts of New Zealand) significantly.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0085/latest/whole.html#DLM404465

Covid 19 was notified as a quarantinable disease on 11 March 2020. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0031/latest/whole.html

Just eight days later, on 18 March 2020, Covid-19 was de-classified by the UK authorities. This meant it was no longer regarded a highly infectious disease.

Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.”

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid

The evidence is that while Covid-19 has triggered an extreme level of media interest, the death rate from the Covid, (at around 0.1%), is significantly less than the 1-10% that was first estimated.

Further, the overall death rate in Europe this season is similar to the death rate over the last five years. It appears that many deaths are being reported as deaths “from” Covid, when in other years they would be reported as heart attacks or pneumonia. The statistics confuse death “with” covid and death “from” covid.

COVID-19 has reportedly killed 14 New Zealanders over the last six weeks or so. The annual death rate in New Zealand is approximately 35,000 or close to 100 people per day. There is an average of one death from heart disease every 90 minutes (an average of 16 per day). Covid-19 is responsible for only about 0.3% of the NZ deaths in this time frame.

Most of the COVID deaths were elderly and suffering from pre-existing medical conditions. In at least one case, the family has publicly challenged Covid being reported as the cause of death, reporting their father/grandfather died at home from a heart attack, which was falsely reported as a Covid death.

An Epidemiclikely to disrupt essential government and business activity”

Curiously the legal criteria for triggering the Epidemic Preparedness Act is not the severity of a disease, but “the effects being likely to disrupt essential government and business activity”.

READ MORE

http://suegrey.co.nz/index.php/2020/04/23/when-the-cure-is-more-disruptive-than-the-virus/?fbclid=IwAR0_bMXYghlDozDjbBm6v02g3jwQ8Y-0RyDgk7aLy2suavC-xr_lKyUDrlw

 

Image by herbinisaac from Pixabay