The Supreme Court has added even more judicial meddling to their long list of idiotic decisions. Yesterday they decided that the Bill of Rights is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. I’m not kidding.

An appeal to lower the voting age to 16 has been accepted by New Zealand’s highest court – but only Parliament can decide if the law will change.

In the Supreme Court today, Justice Ellen France and Justice O’Regan ruled that an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal to decline the case of the Make it 16 group should be set aside.

Justice France told the court it was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights to not allow 16-year-olds to vote, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned.

There were tears from members of the Make it 16 group in court, who have been campaigning for years to have the age lowered.

Justice France said not allowing 16-year-olds to vote was “inconsistent with the bill of rights to be free from discrimination on the basis of age”.

NZ Herald

Riiight…except the Bill of Rights also says:

12 Electoral rights

Every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years—

(a) has the right to vote in genuine periodic elections of members of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage and by secret ballot; and

(b) is qualified for membership of the House of Representatives.

Bill of Rights Act

Are our Supreme Court members dunces, or just being deliberately provocative?

These clowns have just declared that the Bill of Rights is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps we need to look at the make-up of the Supreme Court.

Naturally, our “youth adjacent” Prime Minister and chief virtue signaller has jumped on board this, clinging to this electoral lifeline like Michael Jackson clung to small boys. They clearly have nothing else important, like…oh, I don’t know…uhmmm…like inflation to worry about, or perhaps growing the economy. No, let’s rush a bill into parliament to let children vote!

These morons clearly haven’t thought through the consequences. If 16-year-olds can vote then surely it stands to reason they can then be tried as adults for crimes they commit. Then there are all the other age-restricted activities, benefits and entitlements that likewise could be challenged. A good example of that would be the pension…why 65?…why not 16 for that too? How about purchasing alcohol and cigarettes? That should be lowered too; after all, if 16-year-olds are sensible enough to vote then surely they’ll be sensible enough to drink and smoke responsibly.

Of course, this generation that now wants to vote are also the same ones who can’t even decide what gender they are. If they can’t work out whether they are Arthur or Martha then they really shouldn’t be voting.

They are also the generation that thinks the world is about to end through climate change…well what is it, the world is going to end and therefore there is no point in voting, or it isn’t and so they now want a vote?

This woke rubbish needs to stop.

Next, they’ll want voting done in primary schools with crayons and pictures of politicians.

Whatever happened to ‘Children should be seen and not heard’?

Help Fund Our NewsDesk

We are building a NewsDesk, hiring journalists and taking the fight to the mainstream media. Will you help fund our NewsDesk?

Your Donation
Donation Period *
Details
Payment
Like What You’ve Read?
Become a Member and Directly Support this Author

Please share this article so others can discover The BFD.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news,...