Archive for July 2014

Human RightsIt would appear that New Zealand is  over riding the  requirements of not only the universal declaration of Human rights  article 10 but also the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 14

Both state pretty much the same

All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Yet in our bill of rights the  only persons who get an assurance of a ” fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal” are those  who have been charged  with a criminal offence

In civil matters  you are on your  own   running the  gauntlet and there is nothing fair about  it  .

I have  sent an OIA to the minister of Justice  who has  said that there is no justice any way  .. so as   one  reader puts it..  then what is she minister of   Minister of In- justice ?  or perhaps minister of Milk promotion

Dear Minister of Justice,
the declaration of human rights at article 10 states

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal
charge against him.

Yet our bill of rights only mentions the word Fair once
public hearing once ,independent once and impartial once
and that is in section 25 of the bill of rights which only relates
to criminal proceedings.

the universal declaration of rights does not confine the rights set
out in article 10 to just criminal matters but to all matters , the
operative word being “and ”

section 25 states
• 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure
• Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the
determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:
• (a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial court:
• (b) the right to be tried without undue delay:
• (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law:
• (d) the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess
guilt:
• (e) the right to be present at the trial and to present a
defence:
• (f) the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to
obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence
under the same conditions as the prosecution:
• (g) the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the
penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and
sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:
• (h) the right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according
to law to a higher court against the conviction or against the
sentence or against both:
• (i) the right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a
manner that takes account of the child’s age.

By way of OIA please advise why the New Zealand bill of rights does
not conform to the universal declaration of human rights and
explain why do people in the civil jurisdiction and family courts
do not have the right to “full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligations ”

and Why section 25 only provides for people charged with an offence
and not for any one appearing in court in civil/ family
jurisdictions

This is particularly important to me as a claim of defamation was
filed agaisnt me , my defense of truth and honest opinion were
struck out because I failed to get $12,000 with a two week period
and the matter went straight to quantum . The issue involved being
a whistle blower on a matter of serious government corruption where
law enforcement powers were given to a fictional organization .

additionally

In family court every day people are denied a public hearing as
these hearings are conducted behind closed doors and through the
medium of confidentiality .

Please provide all discussion papers and documents which consider
the bill of rights and the obligations to be in line with the
universal declaration of human rights.

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden

response from Judith Collins

received from  Frank Jackson <frankpjackson@aim.com>

As Rolf Harris starts his prison sentence, the UK government announces a major enquiry into the cover-up of child sex abuse.

This is in stark contrast to NZ where the cover-up of child sex abuse involves the highest echelons of the judiciary, the NZ Cabinet, and even NZ’s Governor General. More details are here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

NZ authorities have been sitting on the evidence for a decade now, even though this NZ atrocity has been discussed in a debate in the House of Commons.

It is unlikely that the UK enquiry will recommend the adoption of NZ’s methods i.e. the gagging of victim families who report under age sex abuse?

Editors Note.   Gagging orders in New Zealand are important as  through the introduction of confidentiality we can pretend that these things do not happen here  and there by  protect the perception of New Zealand being  least corrupt.

It is not about safeguarding our residents and our children it  about keeping up appearances  .