Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma Volume 11: 15-31 March 2015 No. 5-6

Recommendations

Info

F-200 Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: W Young J] (2015) 1 LAW provided in a letter before action of 13 February 2013 sent by their solicitors to CERA: The group [being the Quake Outcasts] considers that your decision is susceptible to successful legal challenge on a number of grounds, as well as significant political embarrassment over the next two years. For example, the group considers that even the Government’s declarations of the “red zones” are unlawful, as such declarations have been made outside the statutory regime set out in the CERA Act, and appear to have been imposed without any consideration of the requirements of that Act. Each of the group’s members proposes to challenge every step of your process at every step of the way should it continue. However, the Quake Outcasts would much prefer to discuss with you the possibilities of a better offer that meets both your needs and those of the group members. … [303] This rather suggests that the initial challenge to the June 2011 decision was in the nature of a negotiating tactic. [304] The arguments for the Quake Outcasts proceeded in part at least on the basis that the procedural infelicities (as they see them) associated with the June 2011 decision enhance their entitlements (as they see them) as to what the government should offer them for their properties. As will become apparent, I do not accept that there were any such procedural infelicities. But, more significantly, if there were such infelicities, I do not see them as material as to the offers to be made to uninsured owners. I therefore see the validity of the June 2011 decision as a red-herring and I think it would have been better if we had chosen not to engage with it. [305] In subsequent sections of this judgment I will address: (a) the scheme of the legislation; (b) the challenge to the June 2011 decision; and (c) the basis upon which offers may be made to the appellants. The scheme of the legislation [306] The structure of the Act is relevantly as follows. [307] The purposes of the Act are specified in section 3: “3 Purposes The purposes of this Act are – (a) to provide appropriate measures to ensure that greater Christchurch and the councils and their communities respond to, and recover from, the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes: (b) to enable community participation in the planning of the recovery of affected communities without impeding a focused, timely, and expedited recovery: (c) to provide for the Minister and CERA to ensure that recovery: (d) to enable a focused, timely, and expedited recovery: (e) to enable information to be gathered about any land, structure, or infrastructure affected by the Canterbury earthquakes: (f) to facilitate, co-ordinate, and direct the planning, rebuilding, and recovery of affected communities, including the repair and rebuilding of land, infrastructure, and other property: (g) to restore the social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being of greater Christchurch communities: (h) to provide adequate statutory power for the purposes stated in paragraphs (a) to (g): …” [308] Sections 6 and 7 provided for the establishment of a community forum and a crossparty parliamentary forum. The purpose of each body is to provide the Minister “with information or advice in relation to the operation of [the] Act.” [309] The functions of the Minister and the chief executive of CERA are set out in ss 8 and 9. These are specified by reference to the powers conferred on the Minister and chief executive by later sections of the Act. There are no general provisions in these sections which render the exercise of such powers subject to any compliance with any other instruments (in particular the Recovery Strategy or a Recovery Plan) which are provided for in the Act. (to be continued) * * * Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015 142
DISENGAGE WITH PAKISTAN COMPLETELY ! - Tarek Fatah ♣ . Tarek Fatah The conference closed with delegates standing in a moment of silence to remember the victims of terrorism around the world. Bhaiyo aur Behno [Brothers and Sisters], Namaskar, Adab aur Salaam Alaikum. Happy New Year. …… Seventy years ago today, the Red Army was knocking on the doors of Berlin and on May 5, 1945 it captured the German capital to bring to an end to the five year war in Europe. In those five years, the USSR and its western allies that included tens of thousands of troops from our India destroyed the largest army ever mobilized. When the guns went silent, 50 million men and women were dead including six million in the Death Camps of Auschwitz where Hitler tried to exterminate the Jewish people. We were able to destroy the might of the German Wehrmacht in a mere five years, yet today, 14 years after the United States declared a war on terrorism, we have not only failed in defeating the forces of international jihadi terrorism, we have ended up strengthening the very enemy we sought out to destroy. We should ask ‘Why?’ We don’t. When Osama was killed, Obama declared Al- Qaeda had been decimated. When Saddam was dethroned, Bush landed a plane on an aircraft carries declaring “mission accomplished”. ♣ Courtesy: Tarek Fatah, Founder, Canadian Muslim Congress is already introduced to our readers; This is the speech delivered by him on 22 March 2015 at the Jaipur International Counter Terrorism Conference; slightly edited; emphases in bold ours - IMS. Despite the Bush and Obama declarations years ago, we are today meeting here in Jaipur because the United States has failed dismally in defeating and army led once by men in caves. Men who had no Panzer divisions, no V1 and V2 rockets, no Messerschmitt fighters, no Stuka bombers, no Tiger tanks, no Rommel, no Hess, No Goering and no Goebbels. As India’s NSA Ajit Doval disclosed on Thursday, the United States alone has spent 5.1 Trillion dollars on this war. For every dollar the Jihadi terrorists spend, the USA has to match that dollar with $75,000 dollars. Imagine that. Over a million men and women have died, yet we are nowhere close to “Mission Accomplished”. The question to be asked is why such a spectacular failure. Let me put it succinctly. To fight Malaria you need to drain the swamps, not kill individual mosquitoes. We have let the drains stagnant and sent missiles to shoot down mosquitoes. The result has been for every mosquito killed, a 1000 are ready to replace it and spread the disease. Instead of draining the swamps, we are shooting down individual mosquitoes, one mosquito at a time. But to drain the swamp, we need to first identify it. During the Second World war we not only knew who the enemy was, we were able to name him, without any guilt or hesitation. In contrast, in this 21 st century fourth world war, there are no Churchills, no Roosevelts, no Marshall Zhukov and no Chiang kai Shek. All we have today are midgets that celebrate mediocrity and practice appeasement. Appeasement that would make Chamberlain look like a courageous man. Imagine a scenario during World War Two if the US in 1942 would consider Italy as an ally. Impossible, right? But, today the same United States considers Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar – the sworn enemies of everything that liberal secular democracies stand for – as allies of the USA. The one country, the elephant in the room that no one wishes to speak about is the original “Islamic State of Pakistan”, the mother-lode of 143 Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015
Page 1 and 2:
(2015) 1 LAW Martyrs Memorial Speci
Page 3 and 4:
(2015) 1 LAW Martyrs Memorial Speci
Page 5 and 6:
PARUCHURI HANUMANTHA RAO Paruchuri
Page 7 and 8:
(2015) 1 LAW Paruchuri Hanumantha R
Page 9 and 10:
(2015) 1 LAW Paruchuri Hanumantha R
Page 11 and 12:
A law may be formal or informal. An
Page 13 and 14:
(2015) 1 LAW A Historical View of L
Page 15 and 16:
(2015) 1 LAW A Historical View of L
Page 17 and 18:
THE ZIETGEIST MOVEMENT : A NEW TRAI
Page 19 and 20:
(2015) 1 LAW The Zeitgeist Movement
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTYR RAMPRASAD
Page 27 and 28:
(2015) 1 LAW Autobiography of Marty
Page 29 and 30:
CHARLIE HEBDO: THINKING NEW, RETHIN
Page 31 and 32:
(2015) 1 LAW Charlie Hebdo : Thinki
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
POLICING BELIEF: IMPACT OF BLASPHEM
Page 43 and 44:
(2015) 1 LAW Policing Belief: Impac
Page 45 and 46:
HISTORICAL INEVITABILITY OR ELECTOR
Page 47 and 48:
(2015) 1 LAW Shreya Singhal v. Unio
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
(2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Mini
Page 89 and 90:
(2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Mini
Page 91 and 92: (2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Mini
Page 141: (2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Mini
Page 145 and 146: LEGENDARY HOCKEY PLAYER DHYAN CHAND
Page 147 and 148: (2015) 1 LAW 147 Our reverent and g
show all

Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma Volume 11: 15-31 March 2015 No. 5-6

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?