top of page

More about the HDCA

Writer: Amanda RiddellAmanda Riddell

Well, I'm reading the relevant law right now. So far as I am aware, no papers have been filed with the District Court. I haven't even had a discussion of my actions except regarding Chloe. There's been no formal mediation process: it's just a bunch of butthurt people that are surprised that I'm refusing their insulting offers to 'help the community' ie help their community, which isn't my community. If they were in my shoes, they'd expect to get paid, so why shouldn't I? šŸ‘‹ - As far as I can tell, Chloe's satisfied with my book as my medium of expression. This process has demonstrated that much of my work wasn't related to her. (though some was ... ie The Mist is a song that I wrote about Chloe). I've also covered my ground regarding apologies, and removing offending material. I'm not a lawyer, but I was wise to delete those 2020 posts; that was smart. - More good news: nobody knows who I am, and those posts weren't widespread. Even now that I'm popular, it's only my Ads that are widely seen. AMPP is increasingly popular, though, and that is something that I should be cognisant of. I'm very glad that my AI skits have struck a chord with NZ - I'm loving this moment that I'm having right now. āœŠ - I have the right to freedom of expression: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.' This covers my arse beautifully. This is why I called my original blog 'Least That's My Opinion'. - I also have the right to freedom of thought: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.' This is the truth. This is why no charges have been filed. My enemies are crybabies! šŸ¤£ - I also win on intent. I'm bipolar: the rants are the byproduct of intrusive thoughts, which are well-documented and something that I talk openly about.

This means that I'm not necessarily in control of my actions, which is a legal advantage. - My opinion is that the conduct of the theoretical complainants was reprehensible, and that their attempts to control my gender expression were illegal in their own right. Their actions (presuming this Orwellian nightmare that I've been living since 2020 is true) breached the Bill of Rights: There are three relevant sections that would have been breached if this anti-trans narrative was true:

1. 'right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment.' 2. 'right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation' 3. 'right to refuse to undergo medical treatment' This is how I feel VUW and others treated me. This is why I keep saying no. - Plus much of what I said was true, which probably assisted my legal defence. I realise it's declasse to out people or speak about extramarital affairs, but if those statements were genuinely true, then that's a legal advantage.

I've got a good memory for gossip; that's useful info when you aren't liked by the vox pop. - I bet that institutions and political parties were surprised that they had no legal recourse. The 2020 posts no longer exist, and nor do most of my 2022 posts on the RP page. This is mostly for the benefit of RNZ: yes, I knew that I was probably a-ok to rant. - And I was right: if I was non-compliant, then it's either a $5,000 fine or 6 months of jail. That's hardly a strong incentive to dissuade me, and that's why I've pushed the limits and made this about free expression and Human Rights. For the angry enemies: being mad at me isn't likely to meet the legal definition of 'harm' - You're punching down at me, and I think that's something that Courts would account for. - that's why intent, view counts/circulation and veracity of my statements are important. I think most of what I said was either free expression or truth, and using fair language that wasn't like the stuff that my brother posted. - Stephen had a rough go of it, but I think that a lot of people ruined his self-esteem. That's probably where his anger came from, while mine was indignation about closets, whether that be closet kink or closet drug users. šŸ„āœŠ - If any complaints had been filed, I'd have known about those. This is an intellectual exercise, but I hope it's proving that I know what I'm doing and there's a reason that I choose social media for my brand of mischief. šŸ

Ā 
Ā 
Ā 

Recent Posts

See All

For Golriz

The best voices communicate a way of being; a subtle force, echoes of past and present. The last ebbing tones in a DEI suicide note: why...

Hi

See, it pays to have powerful friends. But yeah, Golriz is controversial. A lot of people are looking at me differently since we became...

2 commentaires


Amanda Riddell
Amanda Riddell
21 nov. 2023

I'm shocked at how powerful the Bill of Rights is. I had no idea how much speech protection that we have in New Zealand. That's what I rail against: the hideous conformity of NZ. It's legal to dissent and it's legal to dislike institutions. šŸ - To my bougie 'friends' -- if you weren't reading my personal page, then how could you have known what I was saying about you?

That's what I think of Red Scare and VUW and other people that are butthurt. Same goes for the celebrities: that stuff I said was personal page stuff, and that suggests that several of these rich, powerful people read my personal page. Yes, they're public posts, but that doesn't alter their circulation: one wouldā€¦

ModifiƩ
J'aime
Amanda Riddell
Amanda Riddell
21 nov. 2023
En rƩponse Ơ

Another fun fact from the Bill of Rights: 'Minimum standards of criminal procedure

Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: (a)the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court: (b)the right to be tried without undue delay: (c)the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law: (d)the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt: (e)the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence: (f)the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution: (g)the right, if convicted of anā€¦

J'aime
bottom of page