Post by Administrator on Nov 8, 2019 17:40:05 GMT
If parliament make* a law.
Create it. They themselves must know what it means.
A law is a law.
The interpretation is only disputed in any applicable situation where that law is applied..
People, facts and circumstances.
Which are hypothetically not fully known to parties in question.
So... how is is possible to decide in a court, what a law means. If it was already given a meaning when it was made?
It seems to me that time is wasted and resources used pointlessly when there is no need or reason.
It's very comparable to a dictionary.
Words have meaning which we have all learned, know and understand.
We don't go to court to prove what a word means. As it already means something.
Language is known, used.
If there is a word.. "difference "
And there is a dispute in the street ..
2 cars .. claimant says are identical.
But respondent says they are different..
Do we expend massive amounts of resources and court cases and police and prosecution..
Over the word " difference " and what it means..
So we know if the cars are the same or not...
To prove it.
We are not actually examining the cars..
Its is the words and meanings. But we clearly all know and understand them. And have learned them.
The actual cars are a different matters. They require examination.
Now... with a couple of protesters in the street ..
We know there are 1 or 2 or 3 protestors.. its self evident to a fool.
We cannot need to debate and argue the law if it has already been created with meaning..
It must be known.
The law around protesters gathering in the streets.
So why must be go through further sherades as if it needs to be reinterpreted again when we can easily read the law and know it
It seems to me that it is a red herring of contest of wills and police motivations to attempt to impose will in fact against what is obvious just for the sake of it.
Battle of egos so to say.
A very expensive one.
A fools endeavour of power and control to retain some sense of control and authority just for the sake of sense of importance.
Create it. They themselves must know what it means.
A law is a law.
The interpretation is only disputed in any applicable situation where that law is applied..
People, facts and circumstances.
Which are hypothetically not fully known to parties in question.
So... how is is possible to decide in a court, what a law means. If it was already given a meaning when it was made?
It seems to me that time is wasted and resources used pointlessly when there is no need or reason.
It's very comparable to a dictionary.
Words have meaning which we have all learned, know and understand.
We don't go to court to prove what a word means. As it already means something.
Language is known, used.
If there is a word.. "difference "
And there is a dispute in the street ..
2 cars .. claimant says are identical.
But respondent says they are different..
Do we expend massive amounts of resources and court cases and police and prosecution..
Over the word " difference " and what it means..
So we know if the cars are the same or not...
To prove it.
We are not actually examining the cars..
Its is the words and meanings. But we clearly all know and understand them. And have learned them.
The actual cars are a different matters. They require examination.
Now... with a couple of protesters in the street ..
We know there are 1 or 2 or 3 protestors.. its self evident to a fool.
We cannot need to debate and argue the law if it has already been created with meaning..
It must be known.
The law around protesters gathering in the streets.
So why must be go through further sherades as if it needs to be reinterpreted again when we can easily read the law and know it
It seems to me that it is a red herring of contest of wills and police motivations to attempt to impose will in fact against what is obvious just for the sake of it.
Battle of egos so to say.
A very expensive one.
A fools endeavour of power and control to retain some sense of control and authority just for the sake of sense of importance.