New food bill in NZ takes away human right to grow food

nasmorn wrote: post #3

freedompeace wrote: post #2

I've only one thought: WTF?

This is definitely a The Onion hoax. The whole thing reads completely ridiculous.

Edit: I read the [bill][1] and there's nothing of the sort mentioned. I'd call hoax too.

[1] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0160/lat...

Re: New food bill in NZ takes away human right to grow food

#5

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 05, 2011, 10:09 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: New food bill in NZ takes away human right to grow food

#6

Post by middayc » Wed, Oct 05, 2011, 10:10 AM UTC

nasmorn wrote: post #3

freedompeace wrote: post #2

I've only one thought: WTF?

This is definitely a The Onion hoax. The whole thing reads completely ridiculous.

I am not sure it's a hoax:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5601333/Food-safety-backlash...

there is a petition with >6000 signed:

http://www.petitiononline.co.nz/petition/oppose-the-new-zeal...

the FB page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Oppose-the-NZ-Food-Bill-Legisl...

(just quick google)

Re: New food bill in NZ takes away human right to grow food

#7

Post by bunderbunder » Wed, Oct 05, 2011, 5:16 PM UTC

folz wrote: post #4

nasmorn wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely a The Onion hoax. The whole thing reads completely ridiculous.

Edit: I read the [bill][1] and there's nothing of the sort mentioned. I'd call hoax too. [1] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0160/lat...

I'm going to guess it's not a hoax. I've seen this kind of thing happen plenty of times - it's pretty standard for what happens when excitable people with an ideological axe to grind and poor competency at reading legalese get together to try and interpret a bill.

Usually the nuttier interpretations follow quite naturally from the popular technique of skipping the Definitions section, and instead consulting with one's own antigovernment paranoia when deciding what a term is supposed to mean within the context of the legal document. In fact it's best to eschew the very concept of context, since it's really only useful for tempering zeal and tarnishing ideological clarity.