Ignorance is no defence

Sorry to those that already read my rant over at kiwiblog but I'm too incensed about this point to leave it at the bottom of that thread:

All those apologists that seem to think that Labour should not be prosecuted over the theft of our $400K because the "rules were not clear" should try that excuse on their next tax return.

Law, civil or criminal, does not allow ignorance as a defence - and neither does it allow "the rules are not clear". In the case of electoral spending there is actually someone the parties can ask FOR CLARIFICATION WITHOUT CHARGE if needed. The normal person has this to a VERY LIMITED degree in terms of the IRD, where you can get a statement from them regarding tax treatment that can then be used as a defence.

My point is; everybody else has to get legal advice (often at great personal cost) if they believe a point of law is unclear. Some even have to go to court to get case law in place to make a point clear.

Let the lessons of George Orwell's Animal Farm stand - once some people are more equal than others only chaos will result.