People News
Hilary Swank Disputing Fruit Fine
By James Wray Mar 14, 2005, 20:08 GMT
Hilary Swank is said to be fighting a fine issued for taking fruit into New Zealand.
It seems the Oscar winning actress had some undeclared fruit (an apple and orange) in her luggage during a trip to New Zealand in January. Standard practice is to issue a fine of $150 when something is caught with contraband fruit. It is now being reported by the local media that the actress has asked her lawyer to fight the fine in court proceedings next week.
New Zealand is largely pest free and the country has strict laws on bringing items with possible diseases into the country, much the same as some states in the US and Australia.
Swank picked up the Academy Award for best actress for her role in Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby."
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in People
- 1. Justin Bieber can't move eyebrow after concussion
- 2. Pamela Anderson wants to move back to Canada
- 3. Queen Elizabeth excited about concert
- 4. Usher: I'm a genius
- 5. Jake Shears received death threat
Older Talkback
page: 1
Usually the customs authority just confiscates/quarantines/destroys the fruit, and does not impose a fine. Maybe they fined Swank 'cause she's a celebrity, and that's what she's fighting back at.
it happens everyday at Auckland Int'l, everyone knows about the fine, you just keep forgetting about an odd banana or apple in your bag. My wife paid it last year.
She is not the first one who is trying to fight it, no one won yet. its just a waste of money on lawyers fees, but......she is loaded so what the hell...
..whats wrong with all those nutcases from hollywood, they all seem to be loosing it....
A law has no ability to reason and apply common sense, which too often is the case with the lawmakers as well.
If the intention of the law is to prevent the importation of harmful pests, and if she in fact didn't import any such pests, then the law is unjustified, regardless of whatever terms it contains to attempt to achieve the objective of the lawmakers.
There is no greater injustice than the misapplication of a good law.
Jack Black says 'and if she in fact didn't import any such pests, then the law is unjustified...'. Well, I'm a plant pathologist, and most of the 'pests of concern are microscopic and undetectable to the airport inspectors, so there is no way to tell without detection by microsope, culture work, or PCR. These laws are in place for good reasons. There are many precedents for wild and agricultural plants subjected to epidemics from unintentional anthropomorphic introductions of bacteria and fungi, as well as insects. So, no one gets to be a priveledged character, not even Hilary Swank. Besides, what's $150 to her, anyway? It would be more useful to teach her some biology and some manners.
The laws are there to protect the country's ecosystem, introduced pests have already caused much damage here. Great that this publicity might make travellers a little more thoughtful about the stuff they are bringing in. Yes hilarious, fruit of all things.... Chortle chortle fruit smugglers...
NZ has very strict border controls. The front page story of Hilary Swank being caught with ordinary fruit gives the NZ customs a chance to broadcast the message to the world - it is important to NZ to avoid organic products being imported without controls.
Hilary Swank was suitably amazed and her challenging it is the best thing as it keeps it in the headlines.
Good on her for testing the law.
Scott Kroken crokes the ubsurd opinion that there's a good reason to unjustifiably fine people for actions with no reasonable, scientific basis to summarily conclude that it is harmful without empirical evidence to prove it. The pathologist fails to see the pathology of that cancerous argument. It's the common sense of the law and its defenders that is microscopic and undetectible.
How scientific is it to ban that which is undetectable? If the inspectors can't detect it, then the law is unenforceable on any reasonable and justifiable grounds. Would I be fined if I brought in a hermetically sealed piece of irradiated fruit? Yes. So I would be fined even if I could prove that there were no harmful microbes on the fruit? Yes. Simple minds need simple laws that are simply ridiculous.
Swank is obviously fighting the law because it's stupid and wrong, not because she can't afford the fine, you daft sheep folk.
'Sir, we are charging you with illegal distribution of the flu virus. We admit that you don't have any symptoms that are detectable by our inspectors at present, but you have the ability to hold enough of the virus to contaminate our whole country. We have this 'strict' law here in NZ against virus spreading. Please pay this fine. What? You think you're above the law? It must be because you're a celebrity. Just pay the fine: you can afford it.'
And I love the argument that it's 'much the same as some states in the US and Australia'. If other places do it, it must be right. I've seen the agricultural inspection stations in California, and they're just as idiotic as found elsewhere.
The US is no different. Try hiding a Spanish orange, German sausage or Cuban cigar and get caught. Why do we whine when Americans receive similar treatment overseas? My experience with NZ customs has been great.
You are given a sheet on a plane that says to declare any Fruit or vegatables that you may bring into the country - Fail to do so you will be fined $150nz
What a moaning cow - the instructions are written in english. they are asking her for approx $110 USD
There is no special interpretation of the law here!!
Have fruit y/n
declare fruit y/n
If have fruit = Yes and Declare fruit = yes then fruit is destroyed no fine
If have fruit = Yes and Declare fruit = no then fruit is destroyed you get fined
NOT ROCKET SCIENCE
Warning: the sensibility of the following suggestion may pop the thick skulls of airport staff, politicians, and agricultural inspectors who read it.
Big doublesided sign at front of queue, easily visible for anyone in the queue or approaching it:
Fruit (list goes here) may contain microorganisms that are harmful to our agriculture and will not be allowed past the inspectors ahead. You may eat your fruit in this queue. Please place waste in bins provided. Any fruit found by our inspectors will need to be destroyed, unfortunately, which would be a bit of a shame and quite a waste when so many people die for lack of food in the world. Our Ministry of Tourism has kindly made available a selection of local produce at reasonable prices for your convenience just beyond the inspectors. Thank you for understanding and welcome to New Zealand.
pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop.
page: 1
Fruit Patrol ManMar 14th, 2005 - 15:52:12
Just pay the fine!. What makes these people (celebrities) think that they are above the law.
Report this comment