Latest news with #CanadianSupremeCourt
NZ Herald
16-07-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Why the Regulatory Standards Bill matters for property rights
Every member of the United Nations has pledged to uphold the Declaration. Most have embedded property rights into their constitutions. Property rights are a cornerstone of liberal democracy: a principle of Magna Carta, enshrined in the US Constitution, required for membership in the European Union, affirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court and protected in the Australian Constitution. The two major exceptions? Communist states, where the state owns everything – and New Zealand. In 1990, a Labour Government deliberately excluded property rights from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That omission is no accident. It has consequences. Taking property without compensation is not an aberration. It is a recurring feature of New Zealand governance – from settler governments seizing Māori land to modern 'regulatory takings'. Often, Māori land that remains undeveloped is designated as an 'Outstanding Natural Landscape' – in effect, a park – rendering it useless to the owners but still subject to rates. Councils have even sold ancestral Māori land for unpaid rates, often for a fraction of its true value. Now, those who want to continue these regulatory takings urge Māori to oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill – because it lacks a Treaty clause. Yet the bill upholds the Crown's Treaty promise to respect property, restrains the state's claim to unfettered sovereignty, and enforces the citizenship guarantee. It is not only Māori who suffer. Under the Public Works Act, private land is seized for 'public purposes'. Compensation is often delayed or set below market value. Ask the owners of land taken for Transmission Gully or the Waikato Expressway. After the Christchurch earthquakes, homeowners in the red zone were presented with take-it-or-leave-it 'voluntary' buyouts. Those who refused were cut off from basic services. Only years later did the courts rule the red zoning unlawful. These are not historical wrongs. They are present-day injustices. The Regulatory Standards Bill does not create new rights. It simply restates principles that our governments claim to uphold but routinely ignore. Critics say the Cabinet manual offers sufficient protection. But the manual can be amended – or ignored – at the whim of ministers. History shows it often is. The European Union's robust climate policies disprove the notion that property rights and environmental protection are incompatible. The bill should be much stronger. Courts should have the power to strike down legislation that breaches its principles. Governments can ignore it. What message will be sent if the bill is not passed? The critics are not objecting to process. They object to principle. What they oppose is private ownership. Their vision is one of 'collective rights' – where property belongs to the state and citizens live on sufferance. This is not a technical debate. It is a fundamental question: What kind of country do we want to be? The Regulatory Standards Bill proposes six principles that all laws should meet: To most people, this reads like common sense. To the critics, it's dangerous ideology. Our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, sees the bill – as he sees everything – as a management issue: 'Improving the long-term quality of regulation.' But this is not about better drafting. It's about what we believe: individual liberty – or the tyranny of the majority. Opposing the bill are a who's who of the political class: Much of the bureaucracy, a coterie of activist academics and Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Their goal? Unfettered state power. Christopher Luxon wants efficient government. But the real question is not whether government should be efficient. It is whether its power should be limited. If the bill is defeated it will be a licence for the state by regulatory taking to expropriate property; to trample on the principles we helped draft in 1948 and pledged to uphold. It is time we practised what we preach.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Canadian Supreme Court will no longer post on X
The Canadian Supreme Court has announced that it will no longer be posting on X. In a short post announcing its departure on Wednesday, the court said it would be 'focusing our communication efforts' on other platforms. Other state bodies and private businesses have also left X in recent months due to concerns about the platform's policies and misinformation, as well as owner Elon Musk's close ties with Donald Trump. 'Dear subscribers – moving forward, we will be focusing our communication efforts on other platforms,' the court wrote in what may now be its last post on X. 'We invite you to follow us on our LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube accounts to continue receiving our updates. Thank you for your support!' In a further statement shared with reporters, the court said the decision had been based on 'strategic priorities and resource allocation.' 'We are focusing on platforms that allow us to best serve the public and provide relevant information about the Court's work within our limited resources,' it said. It is understood that the court's account on X will remain visible, but will no longer be actively updated. However, the news was greeted with mixed reaction, with some praising the court, but others claiming the decision undermined its independence and impartiality. 'This is a remarkably polite expression of contempt for fascism by the Supreme Court of Canada. I love it,' wrote one user. 'The Supreme Court of Canada lets Elon Musk know,' added another. Canadian lawyer Eva Chipiuk, on the other hand, described the move as 'incredibly disappointing and very telling.' Quoting the court she wrote ''Our job is to make independent and impartial decisions on legal issues of public importance. The Court hears cases in all areas of the law, including constitutional law, administrative law, criminal law and private law. 'The decisions we make here affect the lives of all Canadians, and that of your family and community. We are proud to share that work with you.'' She added: 'There are only two ways to lead: you either divide and conquer, or you build and unite. Perhaps it's time to start uniting the country.' Chipiuk is known for having cross-examining Justin Trudeau in an unsuccessful legal challenge to mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations for cross-border truck drivers during the pandemic. The decision by the SCC comes amid various acts of protest from America's neighbor to the north, as Trump pushes ahead with his plans for sweeping tariffs, all while reiterating his desire for the country to become the U.S.'s 51st state. The American national anthem has been booed at hockey matches by Canadian fans, and coffee shops across the country have renamed Americanos as 'Canadianos.'
The Independent
27-02-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Canadian Supreme Court will no longer post on X
The Canadian Supreme Court has announced that it will no longer be posting on X. In a short post announcing its departure on Wednesday, the court said it would be 'focusing our communication efforts' on other platforms. Other state bodies and private businesses have also left X in recent months due to concerns about the platform's policies and misinformation, as well as owner Elon Musk 's close ties with Donald Trump. 'Dear subscribers – moving forward, we will be focusing our communication efforts on other platforms,' the court wrote in what may now be its last post on X. 'We invite you to follow us on our LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube accounts to continue receiving our updates. Thank you for your support!' In a further statement shared with reporters, the court said the decision had been based on 'strategic priorities and resource allocation.' 'We are focusing on platforms that allow us to best serve the public and provide relevant information about the Court's work within our limited resources,' it said. It is understood that the court's account on X will remain visible, but will no longer be actively updated. However, the news was greeted with mixed reaction, with some praising the court, but others claiming the decision undermined its independence and impartiality. 'This is a remarkably polite expression of contempt for fascism by the Supreme Court of Canada. I love it,' wrote one user. 'The Supreme Court of Canada lets Elon Musk know,' added another. Canadian lawyer Eva Chipiuk, on the other hand, described the move as 'incredibly disappointing and very telling.' Quoting the court she wrote ''Our job is to make independent and impartial decisions on legal issues of public importance. The Court hears cases in all areas of the law, including constitutional law, administrative law, criminal law and private law. 'The decisions we make here affect the lives of all Canadians, and that of your family and community. We are proud to share that work with you.'' She added: 'There are only two ways to lead: you either divide and conquer, or you build and unite. Perhaps it's time to start uniting the country.' Chipiuk is known for having cross-examining Justin Trudeau in an unsuccessful legal challenge to mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations for cross-border truck drivers during the pandemic. The decision by the SCC comes amid various acts of protest from America's neighbor to the north, as Trump pushes ahead with his plans for sweeping tariffs, all while reiterating his desire for the country to become the U.S.'s 51st state. The American national anthem has been booed at hockey matches by Canadian fans, and coffee shops across the country have renamed Americanos as ' Canadianos.'
