Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Lecretia Seales: What’s Worrying Me About Her High Court Case #Euthanasia

Desperately trying to keep this short to make a point.

I have backgrounded Lecretia Seales High Court case for the right to die with dignity here.

But afraid to say, her case has started badly with three applicants who should have kept their agendas – for and against – out of Lecretia’s trial now being granted leave by Justice Collins to be heard, albeit on restricted terms.

My background to the selfish actions of these three applicants is here.

Blogger Lindsay Mitchell has written summarising the Justice’s (woeful) decision to allow these applicants time to grind their agendas, (despite, per Lecretia's own latest press release, her health status is worsening, with chemo stopped and her moving to palliative care, meaning as her husband Matt wrote she does not have the luxury of time for this).

Getting to the point of this post, it raises questions for me regarding the judicial process.

 Lecretia has been plain that her case is ‘her own’: she doesn’t mean it as precedent setting in context of the euthanasia debate in New Zealand, she wants several specific determinations made that would absolve her doctor in helping her to die with dignity if that is what she chooses – without same, obviously, the doctor cannot as he will be on serious criminal charges. Her case turns on her particular facts, and points of law.

In light of this Justice Collins reasons for allowing these applicants to needlessly divert Lecretia’s case are troubling.

In the broad context he has justified his decision as follows:

“The declarations Ms Seales seeks are cast very precisely and are not intended to have a wide application. Nevertheless, the issue of whether or not a person in Ms Seales’ circumstances can be assisted to end her life, or have her health professional deliberately hasten her death raises significant legal and ethical issues that are of intense public importance.”

No. There is no ‘nevertheless’. Her case is on matters of law. In this manner Justice Collins now introduces all those wider issues that belong to the public debate, not that apply to the matters of law on which Lecretia is taking her – non precedent setting – case. [Again, per husband Matt’s post, the wider debate is for the politicians who are cowardly missing in action on this important issue – as they are in debate around Lecretia’s case - not for his wife’s case because she does not have the time.]

As troubling, Justice Collins also allowed the three applicants to meddle because:

I am exercising my discretion to grant the applications primarily because I am satisfied that I may be assisted by the conditional participation of the interveners in reaching my decision in relation to Ms Seales’ application for declarations.

This means his decision is not going to be based on the points of law Lecretia has taken her case on. The decision will be deriving its foundation in the wider agenda-torn debate on euthanasia that can’t possibly be conducted in this case within Lecretia’s lifetime, (to put it bluntly, sorry – given the doctors have stopped her chemo as it has not worked), and which Collins himself admits here he is not qualified alone to decide on.

In my mind, remembering my admonition that Lecretia doesn’t know of me, and thus nothing I say can be attributed to her, this calls Justice Collins competency to hear her case into question, period.

And another matter flows from that. It would be wholly inappropriate for a Christian Justice, or Muslim, or any such faith, to take this case: is there a procedure that ensures this in the selection of a judge for any particular case? Are any religious convictions held by Justice Collins on public record anywhere?


Lecretia's partner, Matt, has blogged after reflecting for two days on Justice Collins decision: it's more optimistic than their initial press release (and myself above). Fingers crossed the optimism proves well founded.


 That’s the substantive matters I wanted to deal to via this post. But also a potshot at Progressivestan on social media to end:


  1. Mark

    I'm posting this note here rather than on Lindsay's blog. We must exchange email addresses some day!

    First of all, I don’t expect us to agree on this subject, but I'd like to have a respectful conversation with you never the less. You believe in the sovereignty of the individual living in a random universe where human life has no cosmic meaning or purpose beyond what we personally assign to it.

    For you, I suspect that there are no legitimate mediating institutions standing between the individual and the State, least of all the Church. By appealing to the State for the right to euthanasia you are effectively acknowledging that the state has absolute power over life and death.

    Historically, our former Judeo/Christian culture asserted that the State has limited power over life and death and is subject to a higher and external authority.

    In your world, absent the Church, it is difficult to claim that the State is acting like a tyrant, because who is to say what is cruel and oppressive? You? Stalin? Pol Pot? ISIS?

    Who are you to complain if in an over populated world, the State sets up committees to decide who should live and who should die? If we have too many accountants, why should they get more life points than artists who are in short supply?

    Especially if they are older accountants.

    We only think it could never happen because we live in a culture that is still largely informed by our Judeo/Christian traditions and values. Ask someone who lived through Pol Pot if it could ever happen, or who is living under ISIS rule right now.

    There are no limits to what those in authority will do, especially when its for the greater good.

    1. You're right. We will never agree :)

      Email is