Thundering from the pulpit is a fine old editorial tradition, and The Herald has often held forth on the rule of law. Starting with the basics:
The law must be upheld…
The law matters, as The Herald feels perfectly comfortable pointing out to those it feels need the advice:
If the law is enforced impartially and professionally, people feel confidence in, and allegiance to, a state. If, however, [it isn’t] the rule of law is undermined, and anarchy is a logical prospect.
…those who make the laws should not break them – any of them.
But public opinion does not decide whether the law has been broken: the courts do.
This one isn’t an editorial, but it certainly makes an important point:
But the law is the law and the failure of the responsible authorities to comply with the letter, let alone the spirit, of the act raises the question of “who regulates the regulators”.
You get the idea. Ten minutes with Google will turn up many more examples. It’s Motherhood and Apple Pie stuff. Who could disagree? Which is why I was so surprised and disappointed when The Herald soiled it’s pulpit so badly on Wednesday:
Minister right to give public all the facts
There you go. Minister right to break the law. Easy as that (for a National government of course). And it gets worse:
The crux of this issue is whether the information now released by Ms Bennett is relevant to their case, or merely an attempt to intimidate, as critics say.
Ahh – no. The crux of the matter is, did the Minister break the law. And it certainly seems that she is in violation of the Cabinet Manual, the Privacy Commission guidelines, and the Privacy Act. So shame on you, Herald editorialist, for your cavalier disregard for the law, and for your mealy mouthed sucking up to National’s excuses. That editorial was a disgrace.