Oz, NZ, Canada may be out of business...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread



HATM's new magazine, INVESTIGATE, is reporting a constitutional bungle eighty years ago may have left Australia, Canada and New Zealand without lawful Governments.

The crisis affects only the three former British Dominions, because of the way they gained their independence from the UK.

Investigate magazines first issue went on sale last night but has already sold out in many stores because of the controversy surrounding its lead story.

The magazine is reporting that a constitutional bungle eighty years ago appears to have left New Zealand with a series of unlawful governments since 1920, with no powers to make or enforce laws, or sell state assets.

The story is based on new international research, and Investigate magazine quotes leading New Zealand constitutional lawyers as conceding that New Zealand is in a "very problematic" position with "no clear answers" to the crisis.

Investigates editor, Ian Wishart, says the bureaucratic bungle creating the crisis took place on January 10, 1920, when New Zealand, Australia and Canada became sovereign members of the League of Nations.

"Under international law, that is the day New Zealand became an independent sovereign state on an equal footing with the rest of the world, but what the colonial government at the time did not realise was the legal implications of that.

"If you look at Hong Kong as an example, at one minute to midnight British law still applied, but at one minute past midnight Chinese law applied. It is what constitutional lawyers call a break in legal continuity and it is a requirement of sovereignty transfers.

"But on January 10, 1920, sovereignty had just been transferred from the British Crown to the people of New Zealand, but the transfer of power was not legally ratified by the colonial New Zealand Government. There was no switchover. All the old laws and political machinery continued.

"Constitutional experts say that failure has huge implications. Legally, all laws in existence in New Zealand up to that point ceased to exist, because they were old colonial laws. That means the Treaty of Waitangi also ceased to have any legal standing as well. What the Government was required to do  but didnt  was call a referendum asking the newly sovereign New Zealand people whether they wanted the existing Parliamentary system, laws, treaties and court system to continue.

"If they had sought and gained that mandate, everything would be OK. But instead, the bureaucrats and the Government presumed that they could remain in power without any legal changes. As a result, weve had an illegal government since 1920 and all laws passed since then are invalid. That includes attempts in 1931, 1947 and 1986 to legislate for constitutional changes."

-- John Galt (still@doom.er), January 25, 2000


this is "off topic" right? (smile)

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 25, 2000.


You will have to explain this to me. You are saying that what the people in a country have decided is not valid. Hmmm. Some arcane legal precident is more valid. Hmmm. Well, I have problems with your analysis, but I could be wrong.

Best wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 25, 2000.

An other day in as for "Whom the Sovern tolls"

-- CPR (can save lives)((if he would go away)) (Any@body.com), January 25, 2000.

Hey, this is really interesting to me, but I haven't heard a word of it. Pulling the wool over our eyes?

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), January 25, 2000.

This 'ol bandicooter has had a problem with voting for the present crop of politicians for donks; it seems to encourage 'em.

-- Pieter (zaadz@icisp.net.au), January 25, 2000.

Good People of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada;

What this all means is that I, as a direct descendant of Adam I, now own your country. Just leave the keys under the doormat; I'll pick them up later. Thank you.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), January 25, 2000.

my original post is ENTIRELY cut and pasted from the INVESTIGATE magazine website...i just thought it was interesting...it is NOT my analysis...it's the article from the link...

-- John Galt (still@doom.er), January 25, 2000.

John Galt,
Good find!
A lot of people would be looking into immigration plans if the constitutions get written out with conservative ideals.
Say! If Quebec doesn't have to secede, but just simply be the first to form a legal government, what is that going to do to the political landscape?

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

So whats new? The United States is illegally taxing it's citizens

-- Gambler (scotanna@arosnet.com), January 26, 2000.

The article continues (http://www.investig atemagazine.com/news.htm)
"...employers deducting PAYE from paypackets could possibly be sued by all their staff for recovery of their tax money."

"Police officers could be personally sued for acting unconstitutionally."

Yet if it's true, as alleged, that no laws are in force, how can any litigation be initiated?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 26, 2000.

Make that http://www.investig atemagazine.com/news.htm (no space breaking the URL)

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 26, 2000.

If this turns out to be true, all you Americans in Montana and Idaho cock an ear to the north - to Alberta, where I am. You will hear a lot of cheering from most of this province.

-- Steve Baxter (chicoqh@home.com), January 26, 2000.

This item has been reported in the media here in New Zealand and it will be interesting to see if anything comes of it. When NZ became a sovereign state, we kept the British Monarch as our Monarch, and also kept all of that Monarchs laws as our own. Because we were (and still are) a monarchy and not a republic, a public referendum was not required.

As far as our Treaty of Waitangi is concerned, it has never had any legal standing, just a moral one. Our various Maori tribes all seem to want to interpret it in different ways to the extent that it is now almost meaningless in any real terms.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), January 26, 2000.

(Gen 48:19 KJV) "And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a MULTITUDE OF NATIONS."

WHO IS THAT? Could it be? Anyone else know of a GREAT multitude or Company of Nations or a Commonwealth of Nations? Brother Nations?

"Golly Martha would you look at that!"

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), January 26, 2000.

In an above reply Pieter mentioned:

bandicoot: 1. any of several ratlike marsupials of the family Peramelidae, of Australia and adjacent islands, having a long tapering snout and long hind legs. 2. Any of several large rats of the genera Bandicota and Nesokia of southeastern Asia. (The American Heritage Dictionary)

Now does anyone know what "for donks" means?


-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.Net), January 26, 2000.


"for donks" = for donkeys' years-a long time.I think.Wouldn't bet my last buck on it, though.

-- Sam (Wtrmkr52@aol.com), January 26, 2000.

Thanks, Sam, for your quick response. Your meaning of "for donks" sounds good to me.

Now I have plenty of beans and rice for donks!

-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.Net), January 26, 2000.

This is truly aweful news, particularly for Canada re: Quebec. I'm sure it will not have any immediate impact and any challenge will have to go through the respective supreme court routes. Looks like seperatists the world over will be scrutinizing the 'hand over' of former colonies all over the world. Tis not so good for 'continuity', me thinks.

Shaking my head.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), January 26, 2000.

Lurkess and Sam,

Thanks for taking a shine to the Oz vernacular.

To 'bandicoot' = to poach, to nick delectables like our shifty native rodent.
A 'bandicooter' = a poacher (just like the 'Squirrell Hunter' :o)...hehe)
To go 'bandicooting' = to boldly go forth and nick thing!

Sam, you surmise correctly on the 'for donks'.

Regards from OZ where we speak 'rite'...

-- Pieter (zaadz@icisp.net.au), January 26, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ