Back to Blog Posts
SOFT LAW – HARD LAW – DISABLING THE SOVEREIGN STATE ‘THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE ‘
Carol Sakey March 3, 2023
LAWS OF NEW ZEALANDUncategorized

SOFT LAW – HARD LAW – DISABLING THE SOVEREIGN STATE ‘THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE ‘

Soft Law is non-binding, is used as a gap filler between non-binding UN- International Agreements. Hence it has some form of political legality, it appears legal but is not necessarily lawful. Be prepared for the ‘hard knocks’ of soft law. Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land, the law of the people our actual nature.

The term ‘Soft Law’ is used to denote non-binding agreements, principles, declarations that are predominantly found in the International sphere such as UN Assembly resolutions. It was dubbed by a Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee as a ‘grey-letter law’, has no legally binding force.

Soft Law is intended to influence conduct. The impact of ‘Soft Law’ plays a role in facilitating, mobilizing the consent of UN Member States that are required to establish binding international agreements. Soft Law is the non binding gap filler until UN Agreements are introduced into domestic policy.

Soft Law can be persuasive, have hard consequences, civil liberties and human rights become limited. September 2001 the UN and various global, regional selective institutions created a specific ‘Soft Law Eco-System’ that limits human rights. Soft Law has does not undergo serious human rights scrutiny

In ‘Soft Law’ there is nothing about specific impingement on human rights. Obligations of UN Member States to International UN Agreements can result in particularly harmful weak norms that can lead to serious human rights violations that undermines security for all.

Human Rights and Security are fundamentally entwined and co-dependent. Security without Human Rights protections is an illusion. Soft Law is developed in the form of resolutions, guidelines, technical manuals, opinions from informal or inaccessible institutions.

Lacks the meaningful process of public assessment by human rights experts. Is implemented in the absence of ‘Hard Law’ (Legislation.) ‘Soft Law can serve as the sole reference point for years, despite the lack of human rights input.

For example: NZ Government agreement of UN Agenda Non-Binding- entered into parliament as a Soft Law. For 5 years remained a ‘Soft Law’ until 2020 when Ardern entered it into domestic policy. Then became Hard Law (Legislation). Legally Binding.

Hence an ‘Osmosis’ takes place. Soft Law enters ‘Hard Law’ Legislation. There is a spiders web of ‘Soft Law’ norms within counter-terrorism standards in counter-terrorism institutions as to inconsistent human rights. Soft Law policies formulated without meaningful assessment of human rights impact

2011 Global Counter Terrorism Forum was an action orientated platform to combat vulnerability to terrorism which issued practises and recommendations on the implementation of counter-terrorism policies. Access limited for human rights entities and civil society

1989 Financial Action Task Force was founded, considered as the global standard, a setter of policies, combatting money laundering and terrorism financing. Recommendations were not legally binding but UN Member States strive towards compliance due to the benefits linked to membership. Its mandate contains no references to International Human Rights.

Common Law has been deliberately ignored- Firstly Do No Harm. The Common Good of All People. ‘Soft Law’ needs no political consensus, its accepted in parliament once the govt agrees to a non-binding international (UN) Agreement

25/09/2015.UN General Assembly unanimously adopted UN Agenda 2030 ‘Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda to transform every aspect of peoples lives worldwide. Re-engineering of peoples behaviour, of society, infrastructure, economy, land use etc., in favour of WEF Stakeholder Corporate Capture.

Fitting hand in glove with Klaus Schwab’s WEF ‘Global Redesign Initiative’ otherwise known as the ‘4th Industrial Revolution or the Great Reset’. The Decade of Action’, 2020 -2030 the deliberate destruction of the ‘free market’ economy, to replace it with ‘Multi-stakeholder’ Corporate Capture. This being the transforming out our we once knew it. The ‘New Normal’. WHO (UN) stating “We must never go back to the old normal”

NZ Govt signed UN Agenda 2030 in September 2015, it then entered parliament under ‘Soft Law’ until 5 years later, in 2020 Ardern entered UN Agenda 2030 into domestic policy hence it then became ‘Hard Law’ Legally Binding. (Legislation)

UN Agenda 2030 Global development goals are to be implanted globally, worldwide. Universally applicable to all countries, highlights challenges, the requirement for transformation of human behaviour from an old normal to a new normal. These are substantial behaviour changes, detrimental to living standards of all peoples, leaving no-one behind, everyone, everywhere at every age.

Each SDG addresses a specific range of issues, governmental goals, specifically detailed targets, within specific timeframes (2030, sometimes 2025). Supported by indicators which at regional and national level are to be developed by UN Member States. At the global level are established by a global indicator framework, that’s reviewed annually, has a comprehensive review every 5 years

The monitoring, revision of the SDGs, targets, indicators are entrusted to the ‘High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development’ under the auspices of the UN Economic & Social Council. The aim to monitor human behaviour, the goal to transform- re-engineer all aspects of human behaviour. A massive one world strategy, firstly a nudge then a push, full compliancy requires a shove.

This One World Governance global strategy is exceptionally authoritarian, immoral theoretical tyranny. All UN Member States have agreed to implement this strategy on populations worldwide. Involves Central and Local Govts, parliaments, civil society, international and national institutions, NGO’s, Businesses-Corporations, Academia and Indigenous Communities

Religious Leaders including the Pope is fully involved whom wants the whole world to embrace UN Agenda 2030 as a moral duty to mother earth (Gaia). This is nothing short of cultism. Pope collaborating with Rothschilds, chaplain of the UN.

Its massively obsessively ambitious, enormously destructive. Deliberately promotes the plundering of sovereign nation states. The telling of the big lie is ‘Self Determination’. They determine your life, you do not that’s the end goal.

Its crazy insanity, courts around the world have already granted legal standing, constitution’s to grant legal personhood to rivers, non human parts of nature and to the earth itself. (Worship of Gaia -Mother Earth) Not God the creator.

13th June 2019 WEF and UN entered an official strategic partnership agreement to accelerate UN Agenda 2030. A global corporate capture. The agreement grants transnational corporations preferential access to the UN System at the expense of UN Member Nations populations.  Includes NZ Sovereign people.

This UN -WEF partnership has been condemned by many, is seen as delegitimizing the UN, weakening the role of UN Member States in autonomous decision making. It formalises a very dangerous corporate capture of the UN System. A UN -WEF One World Corporate Governance. The UN-UN Member States are ineffective at holding corporations to account

Drives the world dangerously towards a privatised non-democratic global governance, corporate influence in the UN has been well known for years.

The Sovereign people of NZ did not vote for this global, nor was this publicly debated hence the Sovereign people of NZ have deliberately have been run rough shot over. A Government that namely a corporation planning the future of your life and that of your children’s, and future generations.

The stakeholder corporate public-private framework is pre-determines, pre-planned. The boiling frog. The frog is about to boil. Ouch will it hurt.. Yes, could it kill you. Yes. Will it kill your freedoms Yes. Unless we stand up to the political cronies in the toilet bowl of Wellington.  Stakeholder Capitalism has failed in the past, but then it was not implemented in such a global vast way.

Stakeholder Corporate Economy– the goal is destroy Free market enterprise-economy. Small businesses, farming communities. Without the Global Pandemic, the lockdowns, the plundering of the economies this leftist Socialist Marxist global entity would never have such massive power as it has now

Multi-stakeholder Corporate economy. Everything is at stake. Your freedom, human rights are at stake.(Non-democratic).  Free- market economy is about supply and demand. Businesses are innovated, consumers choose what they want to buy. Have the freedom to come up with new ideas, freedom of expression and democratic rights.

Jacinda Ardern is the poster child for UN Agenda 2030. The UN blueprint for Socialism reported the ‘Star News’ 16/11/2020 by Muriel  Newman NZ Centre for Political Research’

4.Refers to the Bill & Melinda Gates hosting of a Global Shapers event in New York. Ardern being guest speaker. Ardern boasts to the audience that under her admin she had taken the lead embedding UN Agenda 2030 into our regulatory framework, domestic policy making. Saying “NZ Govt is doing something no other countries have tried, incorporated the principles of Agenda 2030 into domestic policy making, to drive system level actions, an approach needed on a global scale”

Melinda Gates gave Ardern high praise as she told the audience that Jacinda Ardern had released an international human rights plan that NZ promises to take the lead on, among gender equality, women and girls empowerment. Melinda Gates described “Ardern as a true international leader that understands that the future of the world depends on eliminating inequality”

The non-binding ‘Soft Law’ was introduced by the National led Govt and the Labour led government introduced it into ‘Hard Law’ Legislation (team work)

John Key in 2015 praised the adoption of UN Agenda 2030 particularly he said ‘SDG 1 End all forms of poverty on this earth by 2030. The World Ban reported 2nd May 2022. The new extreme poverty line of $2.15 per persay per person

COVID19. (Child poverty Ardern’s Portfolio)

Auckland Scoop News. Food and Financial Hardship in NZ. Reported today. Fruit and Veges increased by 23%. The lack of choice many people are experiencing when purchasing food. The effects of food security. 27/2/2023.

62% of families run out of food every week, 5.6% experience inadequate nutrition every day. 66% Experience stress about their inability to afford food weekly for their families. 35% feel constantly stressed about their inability to afford food (Press release by Vision West) West Auckland Community Trust. Wealthy corporations keep the poor in poverty. Unless you create the life you want then there is a great risk you will be eventually forced to deal with a life you do not want.

Chris Trotter article 12th February 2023. Referring to Three Waters calling it a mastermind of misdirection. Tribal corporation already halfway into the deracinated world of global capitalism, well hidden from their own people behind swirling veils of Māori mysticism.

Any politician willing to front this power grab by the Iwi Elite Corporations is bound to become a lightening rod for all manner of racially charged criticism and abuse.  Deliberately silencing, censoring freedom of speech all part of stakeholder corporate capitalism. Your freedom is seriously at stake.

Part and parcel of the UN-WEF multi-stakeholder partnership of UN Agenda 2030. Transforming our world SDG 6. ‘Water’ UN Agenda 2030, received great praise in Parliament in 2015. The ‘Soft Law’ gap filler. Arderns ‘Hard Law’ -Hard to swallow. Whatever Hipkins or any other MP says. UN Agenda 2030 ‘Water SDG6 like all the other SDGs are all part of the Governments legislations. Don’t be fooled its not going away.

5.LINKS

SOFT LAW – HARD LAW – DISABLING THE SOVEREIGN STATE ‘THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE ‘

 

Chris Trotter: The privatisation two-step – is Three Waters a masterpiece of misdirection? – Point of Order (wordpress.com)

Auckland.Scoop » Food And Financial Hardship In Aotearoa New Zealand – PART TWO – The Effects Of Food Insecurity


Goal 1 Ending all forms of poverty everywhere. Impossibibility.

https://www.un.org › sustainabledevelopment › povertyEradicating extreme poverty for all people everywhere by 2

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/gender-equality-and-2030-agenda-sustainable-development

https://www.intersentiaonline.com/publication/the-private-side-of-transforming-our-world-un-sustainable-development-goals-2030-and-the-role-of-p/2

https://www.fian.org/en/press-release/article/wef-takeover-of-un-strongly-condemned-2273

https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-opinion/nzs-path-united-nations-agenda-2030

Auckland.Scoop » Food And Financial Hardship In Aotearoa New Zealand – PART TWO – The Effects Of Food Insecurity

https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/the-role-of-soft-law-in-global-governance-heading-towards-hegemonic-influence/

https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/the-role-of-soft-law-in-global-governance-heading-towards-hegemonic-influence/

 

 

 

...
Read More

LAWS OF NEW ZEALAND Blog Posts View all Categories

WATER CANNOT BE OWNED BY ANYONE
Carol Sakey March 3, 2023
LAWS OF NEW ZEALAND

WATER CANNOT BE OWNED BY ANYONE

Irrespective of who owns the land over which the water flows, under common law and statute law, water is owned by no-one. There is absolutely no legal, moral or common sense justification for any Iwi/Māori to claim freshwater. The legal situation is that no-one owns water, no-one ever has. Reference was made to common law and the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 and the Resource Management Act 1991. (Canterbury University Law lecturer David Round

Water was never regarded by the common law as a commodity. The courts held that a land owner had no right to the ownership of water which either flows through or percolates within the land. In this way the courts recognised water like air is not only vital to the survival of all species on the planet but is something in which humanity has no hand in creating. It therefore like air occupies a unique status in the eyes of common law, it cannot be owned by anybody. Irrespective of the law.

Some Iwi/Maori have continued to claim ownership of freshwater. But since successive govts and courts have consistently rejected their opportunist claims, they have now turned their attention to the ‘control’ of water. (Former Judge Anthony Willy) “Water was never regarded by common law as a commodity”

Former Law Lecturer, Judge Anthony Willy, agrees: “Water was never regarded by the common law as a commodity

The truth is that no form of constitutional govt of itself can guarantee our civil liberties, but the intersection of the Rule of Law as administered by the Courts and the democratic process offers the best protection known to history- the enablement of tribal groups to gain control of freshwater will therefore not only entrench separatism in NZ but it will undermine the Rule of Law. (Judge Anthony Willy)

 Under British common law, naturally flowing freshwater is not owned by anyone, but is treated as a public good.

 NZ Bill Of Rights (Private Property Rights) Section 11A, “Right to own property”, inserted by clause 4, states: “Everyone has the right to own property, whether alone or in association with others.” Section 11B, “Right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property”, inserted by clause 4, states: “No person is to be deprived of the use or enjoyment of that person’s .

 NZ Bill Of Rights has been traditionally contained in Common Law in ‘The Judges Rules 1912 now set in 23 (1)b of The NZ Bill Of Rights 1991.

Carol Sakey  https://wakeupnz.org

...
Read More
REFERENCES TO LAWS IN NEW ZEALAND.
Carol Sakey February 16, 2023
LAWS OF NEW ZEALAND

REFERENCES TO LAWS IN NEW ZEALAND.

SOFT LAW: The term soft law is used to denote agreements, principles and declarations that are not legally binding. Soft law instruments are predominantly found in the international sphere. UN General Assembly resolutions are an example of soft law.. For example when NZ signed the Non-Binding UN Agenda 2030 it was accepted by all political cronies in the toilet bowl of Wellington. Soft Law is a stop gap to ‘hard law’- legislations. Ardern entered the UN Agenda 2030 into Domestic Policies, it them became ‘legalized hard law’ (Note not necessarily lawful). Soft Law needs no political consensus, it is just accepted as it is and not opposed in parliament. Hence mobilises a consistent general response without consensus. (Soft law is non-binding)

CONTRACT LAW:Is common throughout the country, some specific court interpretations of a particular element of the contract may vary between the states, countries. In New Zealand there are 5 key elements of a valid contract, a clear offer, unequivocal acceptance, adequate consideration, an intention all parties enter into legal relations under certain terms. Based on the principle that agreements must be honoured

CUSTOMARY LAW:The rulings of Customary Law institutions can be inconsistent, unpredictable and discriminatory. As decisions are often not recorded, and appeals from  decisions may be difficult, there is insufficient monitoring and supervision of their operations. Customary Law: Under the doctrine of aboriginal rights, customary laws or practices of a continuous nature may be granted the force of law by the courts and an associated rights enforced if they have not been extinguished by statute. The four principles of customary law, the general principles of law are laches, good faith, res judicata, and the impartiality of judges. International tribunals rely on these principles when they cannot find authority in other sources of international law. Customary Law is consuetudinary or unofficial law) exists where: a certain legal practice is observed and. the relevant actors consider it to be an opinion of law or necessity (opinio juris).

CIVIL LAW: The term civil law derives from the Latin ius civile, the law applicable to all Roman cives or citizens. Its origins and model are to be found in the monumen- tal compilation of Roman law commissioned by the Emperor Justinian in the sixth century CE. Civil Law covers disputes between individuals, companies and sometimes local or central government. Civil law disputes are generally the cases in court that are not about breaking a criminal law. New Zealand’s civil justice system works in such a way that cases can be resolved through a claims process. What are 4 examples of civil law? Four types of Civil Law deal with Contracts, Property, Family Relations, Civil wrongs causing physical injury or injury to property (tort). Civil law, also known as private law, regulates disputes between private individuals or entities (e.g. companies). It is thus different to cases dealing with matters between individuals and the state, i.e. public law and criminal law. The drawback of Civil Law is that even if previous cases show you should win your case, there is no guarantee a judge will interpret the code in the same way on your case,

COMMON LAW: Began in England in the 11th century with the establishment by William the Conqueror, King of England, of the Kings Courts. The courts, in deciding local disputes, applied local customs. Over time, these customs became rules and were the basis for later courts to make decisions on similar disputes. Henry 11 is recorded as being the alleged ‘Father of Common Law”.  At the centre of common law is a legal principle known as stare decisis, which is a Latin phrase that roughly means “to stand by things decided.” In practice, stare decisis is just a fancy way of saying that courts and judges need to follow earlier decisions and rulings — otherwise known as caselaw. : Much of New Zealand’s law, such as its common law tradition and constitutional framework, has been inherited from the English legal system, which was applied (so far as applicable to the circumstances of New Zealand) in 1840. Independent, fair and efficient courts are an important cornerstone in our democracy. New Zealand has common law, which means judges make legal decisions based on previous judges’ decisions as well as on statutes (written law) passed by Parliament. Common law, also known as case law, is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. Common law draws from institutionalized opinions and interpretations from judicial authorities and public juries. Common laws sometimes prove the inspiration for new legislation to be enacted. Common Law is better than Civil Law as it  allows for flexibility allows  judges to be able to respond to future cases, even those that they had not predicted. Common law is independent of political influence, ensures consistency in the legal systems and is clearer in instructions compared to civil law.  Civil law systems are codified statutes predominate.

My Rights Under Common Law:-Blackstone’s Introduction to the Study of the Law and the Constitution lists three primary common law rights: personal security, personal liberty and private property, and auxiliary rights necessary to secure them, such as access to justice.  Common Law protects Human Rights:- These rights and freedoms are protected by the common law principle that legislation should not infringe fundamental rights and freedoms unless the legislation expresses a clear intention to do so and the infringement is reasonable. ‘Firstly Do No Harm’, This harm/no–harm distinction at common law cannot be dismissed

NOTE: An interesting case -Judge Wylie (Published 12/3/2020) A High Court Judge opened the door for a new ‘Tort’ laws making corporates responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. This is related to 2 out of 3 claims made by Climate Change Iwi Leaders Group Chair Mike Smith against Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Dairy Holdings, NZ Steel, Z Energy, NZ Refining and BT Mining. Has had a similar case against the government.

The hearing was to consider the corporates move to strike out the claim could not be reasonable argued. Wylie released a decision saying “while Smith could not proceed on already established rules of negligence and public nuisance, a new area of law could be created. He said “I am reluctant to conclude that the recognition of a new tortious duty which makes corporates responsible to the public for their emissions is untenable. It may, for example, be that the special damage rule in public nuisance could be modified, it may be that climate change science will lead to an increased ability to model the possible effects of emissions”. Smith wanted the court to declare the corporates have caused a public nuisance through their emissions and order they move to ‘zero net’ emissions from their activities by 2030.

The Judge referred to a paper where the Supreme Court chief alongside other judges, states the problem of climate change does not adhere well to established legal doctrine.  “The Common Law method brings stability, but it can also allow for the injection of new ideas and for the creation of a new responses as required” Judge Wiley cited. The statement of claim raises three caused of action, all in tort-public nuisance, negligence and breach of an inchoate duty. Declarations are sought that each of the defendants has unlawfully caused or contributed to the public nuisance alleged or breached duties said to be owed to Smith, Injunctions are also sought requiring each defendant to produce, or cause, zero net emissions from its activities by 2030.

Judge Wylie said “Smith’s negligence claim could not go ahead because there was no proximity between Smith and the Corporates, and that if he ruled in favour, floodgates may open”. He said “”the public nuisance claim was  clearly untenable”

Judge Wylie said “ Even if Smith was successful in his wider claim it would be difficult to craft an injunction which did not clash with Parliament, Government policy and other law. It would in effect have the court acting as regulator requiring specialist no judicial expertise. Meanwhile a High Court judge had declines an application to strike down a judicial review of Thames Coromandel District Councils refusal to sign a ‘climate change’ declaration. Justice Gault also declined the councils bid for security deposit, saying it was in the publics interest for the case to go ahead and the group seeking the review could not afford it.  Justice Gault did not look at the merits of the case, but said “the bar for striking out a judicial review should be hight”. Arguments in the application looked at whether the declaration had any meaningful impact or whether it was simple binary decision for the local Mayor to sign or not.

The decision on the Smith case is covered in more detail in the Energy and Environment  documentation

 

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2003/S00142/judge-leaves-door-open-on-climate-change-case-just.htm

https://energyandenvironment.net.nz/home.html       Carol Sakey  https://wakeupnz.org

 

 

 

 

...
Read More
Back to Blog Posts