Queen & Country

Loyal to Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors!

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Dealing with the disloyal

One way in which we Loyalists can deal to the disloyal republicans is the law. I have recently been looking at the 1961 Crimes Act; which I have been told by a bush lawyer friend contains provisions to protect loyalty to the Queen. After looking at www.legislation.govt.nz, i can see that Section eighty-one of this Act tells us that it is illegal for any one of Her Majesty's subjects to:

"bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against, Her Majesty, or the Government of New Zealand, or the administration of justice"

Clearly; the republicans & any other haters of the Royal family are doing this. Demanding a banana republic is disloyal to our Queen, & to our heritage & it is against the law. Sadly, I doubt that the current socialist; Labourite government of feminazi Clarke will want to prosecute their friends in the republican movement. However; I will ask my own lawyer next time I talk to him what he thinks the chances are of a private prosecution!!

6 Comments:

Blogger Idiot/Savant said...

Ah yes, sedition. An archaic law to protect an archaic political system. Unfortunately for the monarchists, such a prosecution would be unlikely to survive a BORA challenge - and I expect Tim Selwyn's one to fall on exactly those grounds when it makes it back to court.

If you're interested in this law, I have some posts on historical abuses here, and quite a series on the issues it raises here. I should also point out that I can't think of anything more likely to "excite disaffection" against the Queen than prosecuting republicans for their views; does that mean those calling for prosecutions are seditious?

1:12 AM  
Blogger Lewis said...

Oh Bill, you're not serious are you?

I doubt you could actually have a civil prosecution under the Crimes Act 1961 anyhow.

9:57 AM  
Blogger Fletch said...

"bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against, Her Majesty, or the Government of New Zealand, or the administration of justice"

Dont you think, just maybe, using a term like "feminazi" to describe the leader of tha NZ government might possibly also qualify?

Are you seriously suggesting using this archaic law in all circumstances?
Fletch.

11:25 AM  
Blogger Pitt said...

OK, Bill, I think you're being a little dishonest here. If you read the next subclauses to the one you quote, there is a specific exemption to the sedition law for "advocating for peaceful Constitutional change, arguing HMQ is mistaken in her measures, or that she has been badly advised". I hardly think my friend Mr. Holden is advocating violent change, neither is he threatening to kidnap or assault Her Majesty.

I quote Pope and Kipling to the Statue of Queen Victoria in my local district. I will match Loyal credentials with you any day of the week. But the fact is, your reportage is incomplete and skating around the dishonest.

10:56 AM  
Blogger mike sweetman said...

you are. you are taking the piss. I'm almost 100% sure now.

11:37 AM  
Blogger Paul Adams said...

I am here because of search results for blogs with a related topic to mine.
Please,accept my congratulations for your excellent work!
I have a tour Cayman site.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Best regards!

8:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home