Wearing a wig is not a form of expression. Depending, that is, upon the sort of wig it is. And why the person is wearing it. Maybe. Hope that clears things up for you.

The Court of Appeal handed down its decision yesterday on whether, under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, Phillip Smith has an expressive right to wear a wig.

The Court of Appeal has upheld Arthur Taylor's challenge to the ban on prisoner voting under the NZ Bill of Rights Act ... except that he personally shouldn't have been able to bring the case in the first place, and he still won't be able to vote. But still - exciting!

I've been writing on the issue of prisoner voting generally, and jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor's various challenges to the 2010 law preventing it in particular, for quite some time now.

... or, rather, the fellow prisoners who joined his application to have the legislative ban on prisoners voting declared inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act win again.  

I'll write more on this later today, but seeing as I don't do social media and there may also be some of you out there in internet land who don't either ...

Alfred Ngaro appears to think the Government can stop its critics taking part in government programmes. That's not just wrong from a political morality standpoint, it's flat out illegal.

Given the speeches at the National Party's Auckland regional conference, New Zealand's housing situation/challenge/imbroglio/anything-but-a-crisis appea

Does a murderer really have the right to wear a hairpiece? Are we really living in such mad times? Or might things be a little more complex than that?

I suspect the High Court decision that prison officials acted wrongly in taking Phillip John Smith's hairpiece from him is going to turn the talkback outrage meter right up to 11. Prisoners have a right to wear a toupee? That piece of shit can keep his rug on?