NZ Constitution??

Posted by racheal_storm on April 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM

I haven't written anything in here for 10 months and have been thinking I need to start again.
So as this is something that interests and away from the normal Transgender/Transsexual issues and due to a comment made to me the other day, lets start here.

The comment was....
"I have to ask though has America having it as one document made them a better place ."

My answer didnt take to much thought...."No". Realise a few American friends wont like that but its about how I see New Zealand in the future and being like America isnt in the picture. Look at what has happened in Australia with their trying to emulate America. They are being drawn into so many military conflicts, with troops being send off overseas, involving themselves in other nations politics and helping instill the American way. The worst influence is seen in Aussies themselves and their breakfasts. They are eating like Americans. Desserts for breakfast and full of syrups and sugar! Obesity is growing and the great Ozzie beer pot is giving way to American style FAT.

So NZ, we are told, is one of only 3 countries in the world that doesnt have one written constitution covering all. Is that a fair reason to support we need one? The whole issue is to big to put here as one blog so lets go back to the original question. Has the American constitution made it a better place and my answer No.

I know there are many wonderful people in America but from my experience and what I see, it is a land of violence. They love to go to other peoples wars and tell others how to run their country. Their secret services often appear to be operating deviously behind the scenes. American people themselves are often in conflict between themselves. They are heavy handed with their military might both internally and externally. They are bigheads in their self might.

Now I will acknowledge America does a great peace keeping role and it is appreciated, but sometimes it is over the top IMHO. Spending billions on missles, bombs and Hummers in a so called war against terrorism when perhaps if they have spend just millions in giving the Islamic people a reason to live, improving their living conditions might have achieved a better result.

The American people have been given a power by there constitution to stand united. Thats good and bad. It has also given them the to power to feel they are better than others and they arent slow to tell us they are. However, I can relate several stories over years where kiwis have beaten the Yanks. Our cops still dont wear guns as a norm yet theirs have been wearing them forever. NZ is amongest the world leaders in Human Rights, way ahead of America.

And that brings me to this whole 'right to bear arms BS'. It relates to our Treaty of Waitangi actually. It all resolves around the interpretation and intent at the time it was enacted.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is no way that should be being interpretated as everyone has a right to a gun. That was written around the 1840's? so look at the use of punctuation and grammar. It was written in times when transport was by horse and stagecoach, no telephones or internet. There were no heavy assult rifles and few if any automatic weapons. No planes of helicopters. If trouble broke out in town, it took days/weeks/months for troops to arrive and quell the situation and so towns and states had 'Malitia' they could call on quicker. It was important for members of that Malitia to own weapons. It refers to states and the people of the state, not individuals.

These days, America has troop helicopters and planes, motorised transport, armed police and armed state police, State troopers, reservists, military forts in every state. There is no need for its citizens to be armed to form a Militia. But Americans defend their rights to be allowed to 'bear arms'. It doesnt matter if a few nutters go nuts and shoot innocent children. The recent Senate vote wasnt to deny the right, mmerely to help control the nutters from having guns but the American people want nutters to have them because its their right in the constitution.

Murder rates in NZ, 0.9%; Australia, 1%, America, 4.8% [wikipedia, ( yes I hate wikipedia)]
So what does that say about the Constitution?

When the 2nd Ammendment was written and enacted, it was likely right for the times but the problem is that it isnt easy changing a Constitution and therefore it hasnt kept up with the changing world. The Judiciary are slow to act and wait until a case is bought before them. They are reactionary, ruling on what has happened and arent looking forward as our Parliament is supposed to be when it makes laws for what is happening or about to happen.

We already have a Constitution Act, a Treaty of Waitangi Act, a Treaty Settlement Act, a Human Rights Act and many others. We dont have a need for it all to be in one Act that is hard and slow to change. With IT we have seen the pace of world change rapidly happening and it will continue to change faster. We dont need a Constitution set in stone, that will be misinterupretated in years to come and to slow to recognise changes. Where important changes that are needed to be decided on in a year are delayed for 20 years. Where people suffer because it was slow to change.

We already have issues with interurpretation of Acts like Treaty of Waitangi so who decides today what interupretation of TOW we put in a Constitution in coming years and then how will that be interupreted in 100years time? We need the TOW settled and set in the passed before we impliment any Constitution. A Constitution is equally for all people and so you can not favour one people in it by adding in Treaty of Waitangi.

But then that is a whole other blog re the Treaty of Waitangi and a Constitution isnt it?

Categories: None

Post a Comment


Oops, you forgot something.


The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

Already a member? Sign In