Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Selective enforcement is bad

Our modern society is built on the rule of law.

In order to protect the individuals who make up our society, and society as a whole, we create rules, regulations and laws that are designed to ensure our behaviour does not adversely affect others. Without these laws the world would pretty rapidly disolve into anarchy and chaos.

Of course laws alone will produce very little change, unless they are accompanied by some form of enforcement. To be effective, that enforcement relies on some kind of punishment such as a fine or restriction of certain rights by way of imprisonment, compulsory community service or other.

This system works well and has enabled us to build safe, stable communities where people (in general) are protected and their rights preserved.

However, the effectiveness of the rule of law is very reliant on consistent enforcement of the rules and laws and that's where I am seeing a big problem right now.

If those responsible for policing the laws of the land decide to selectively enforce those laws they effectively take over the role of the judiciary and short-circuit the entire justice system.

I've noticed that there has been a general trend away from selective enforcement in some areas (such as traffic offences) but a significant trend towards it in others, as will be documented here today.

Many of us who've been driving for decades will fondly recall the fact that in "the old days" you'd often be pulled over by police for speeding and then be let off with a verbal warning if that speeding was only marginally over the limit. Today however, such warnings are very few and far between. Chances are that even the smallest infraction of the speed limit will see you summarily issued with a stiff fine and points off your license.

Unfortunately this appears to have created a bit of a disconnect between police and road-users. Those who were, in the past, given such a verbal warning often maintained respect for the police and felt thankful for the interaction. These days it's more of a "them and us" situation, where the police are regarded with contempt by those who find themselves being pinged for doing 5Kph over the limit in a passing lane while overtaking slower traffic.

Given the trend towards elminating selective enforcement I am left a little concerned by the situation with drones and the law.

Several readers sent me links to this story covering an incident where duck hunters shot down a drone that was being used by an animal rights advocates to monitor their activities.

I was gobsmacked by the ignorant comments of "Minister for the South Island" James Meagre.

To be honest, I didn't even know there was a Minister for the South Island -- is that really a thing and if so, why?

Mr Meagre showed his bias, ignorance, stupidity and unfamiliarity with the truth when he told the media that the drone flyers were “dangerous,” “reckless,” and “incredibly stupid.”

He went on to claim "The idea that flying a drone into the faces of people lawfully operating firearms is not only dangerous but incredibly stupid.”

Who is this idiot?

How does he somehow believe that flying a drone is more dangerous than using a firearm?

Also, why the bullshite claim that the drone was flown "into the faces" of the hunters?

He also claims that the hunters were engaged in the "lawful" use of firearms -- which might have been true but only up to the point where they shot down the drone. At that moment they breached CAR 91.11 of the aviation regulations. This is public knowledge thanks to news reports such as this.

The really interesting thing is that although these hunters have broken the law, the chances are that they will not be charged or prosecuted because of... "selective enforcement".

For proof of that, I present this report. In this case a judge erroneously (IMHO) dismissed the charges -- that will discourage police from even bothering to lay charges in future.

The reality is that CAA considers a drone to be an aircraft (albeit remotely piloted) and such craft are as bound by the aviation regulations as the Cessna 172 at your local flying club or the A320 that wings passengers across the Tasman Sea.

So it seems that drone flyers have all the responsibilities of pilots but none of the protections.

When MPs tell bald-faced lies and are so misinformed as Mr Meagre then I see that the anti-drone narrative being constantly espoused by our useless mainstream media is certainly having an effect.

I would bet good money that police will not charge the duck hunters for clearly breaking the law with a firearm and even if they do, I would expect the courts to dismiss the charges as they have before -- through ignorance or bias.

Such is the world in which we now live.

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

Here is a PERMANENT link to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font