When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
13 Comments
Most Voted
NewestOldest
PlainView
1 month ago
Kudos to you for pointing out his mistake. Making false claims like this can undermine credibility altogether.
I think you is being a tad harsh, it’s not entirely his fault. It beggars belief to me, the issue is more about whether his research was lacking or just not up to scratch.
They exist already in both Canada and NZ, despite the misleading statement. Poor politics, to say the least.
Tahlia A
1 month ago
A glaring inaccuracy that challenges his credibility. By stating that , heignored existing legislation in both countries. He should be honest and not mislead the public.
BirdSong123
1 month ago
The guy’s claim of a lack of property rights in New Zealand and Canada is a pretty obvious blunder. He can’t cherry pick small parts of the law and use only those bits that fit his argument.
William T
1 month ago
His takes a pretty big leap in claiming Canada and New Zealand are the only two Western democracies without property rights protected in law😂
Parker Clarke
1 month ago
What exactly Seymour was trying to achieve in his State of the Nation speech. He may have genuinely believed that the current legislative framework in both countries is lacking and required stronger legal protections for property owners. However, his statement is more suited to a campaigning platform than a sober analysis of the existing situation!
Input your search keywords and press Enter.
Advertisement
This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
Advertisement
Why this ad?
Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉
🔙 Back
🔄 Reload
🌐 Translate
🧭 Open in New Tab
ThisQuality Footer – CNN Style
Weekly Newsletter
Get a curation of our most engaging stories in your inbox every week on Friday.
Kudos to you for pointing out his mistake. Making false claims like this can undermine credibility altogether.
A fair bit of research has been left undone
Actually, a fair bit of research hasn’t been left undone, it’s been done on you, Soraya, and it turns out David Seymour’s claim was false.
What???
David Seymour has some serious explaining to do after getting caught.
I think you is being a tad harsh, it’s not entirely his fault. It beggars belief to me, the issue is more about whether his research was lacking or just not up to scratch.
Get out of here Ari no good to have you around.
I’m not harsh. What are you on about?
They exist already in both Canada and NZ, despite the misleading statement. Poor politics, to say the least.
A glaring inaccuracy that challenges his credibility. By stating that , heignored existing legislation in both countries. He should be honest and not mislead the public.
The guy’s claim of a lack of property rights in New Zealand and Canada is a pretty obvious blunder. He can’t cherry pick small parts of the law and use only those bits that fit his argument.
His takes a pretty big leap in claiming Canada and New Zealand are the only two Western democracies without property rights protected in law😂
What exactly Seymour was trying to achieve in his State of the Nation speech. He may have genuinely believed that the current legislative framework in both countries is lacking and required stronger legal protections for property owners. However, his statement is more suited to a campaigning platform than a sober analysis of the existing situation!