Money for court but not for food or shelter?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/94076760/beggars-go-to-court-arguing-that-begging-is-a-fundamental-freedom-of-expression
Not a day goes by that there isn’t an outrageous insane and expensive court cases going on.  Napier City Council are being challenged over their bylaw preventing begging. I can’t understand how beggars can afford to take a case to court – lawyers costs, cost costs, possibly being told to pay the court costs of the side they are taking to court as well as just transporting themselves to and from court. Surely if you have the resources to sue a council for banning begging you can in fact provide for yourself and don’t need to beg. Often the ‘human rights’ of one impact on another. Not allowing beggars protects the human rights of the many to walk the streets fairly without feeling threatened or harassed by beggars, what about everyone else’s human rights if this case wins? There is no reason for people to be begging in Napier. The surrounding farms are begging for workers. Get a job and then you won’t have to beg. I might have a human right to read in peace in quiet but my son might think it is his human right to play on the computer without headphones on –  someone has to make a compromise or someone has to rule whose rights are held above the other. Anyone can say anything impacts on their human rights, it’s ridiculous. To me every human being deserves to be treated with respect but treating people with respect and letting them do whatever they want are too different things. Beggars do harass people https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/94161988/palmerston-north-man-attacked-by-beggars, the councils should be able to protect citizens from this behavior. We have a benefit system in this country so we all get enough provided for food and right now there is even enough work. 

https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/94079123/waikato-law-student-sarah-thomson-takes-government-to-court-over-climate-change

University student Sarah Thomson is taking the government to court over current emissions targets. I can’t understand this. Firstly, who is paying? If it is Sarah, fine, her money lost if she loses and has to pay court costs. But what if she wins? Would the government have to pay her court costs? I think some people forget the government’s money is our money. If the government loses we pay. That money could be going towards cutting hospital waiting lists, more teachers aids in schools, better roads, more police but instead it is going to lawyers costs, maybe even appeals. Here is what the money should be going to, in my opinion, https://www.change.org/p/bill-english-i-urgently-need-a-cochlear-implant-surgery-before-i-go-completely-deaf-294c27d1-54c9-4261-8e76-ca2657f56cb5?recruiter=38574537&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=766822&utm_content=nafta_share_post_title_en_3%3Acontrol. A young woman losing her hearing and $90,000 would save it. False economy to do nothing. Helping her in my opinion as she could end up on benefits for life due to her disability. Fix her hearing and she is as capable as the rest of us ( of course some deaf people work but being deaf would definitely limit someone’s options). Legal costs often add up to tens of thousands of dollars. It could even end up taking from the very cause she wants to support. Surely it would be better to campaign the government and get public and opposition support to her policies and then it could be a topic for the upcoming election rather than a possible expense to the country. I’ll just say, if she loses she better pay costs. We have more important things to pay for than one person grandstanding.

Author: revisionisteditor

Editor in charge of Revisionist Media.