Tuesday 25 August 2020

Appealing to the NZ government over human rights


by James McLean


Two months ago we complained to the Human Rights Commission [HRC] regarding the Covid 19 Health Response Act’s [C19HRA’s] breach of human rights with its potential for mandatory vaccination. The complaint has been dismissed. The HRC’s lack of process, diligence, consideration and impartiality would be regarded as sheer comedy if the situation weren’t so grave.

This application has been useful in highlighting the abomination that is the C19HRA. It also shows the futility of expecting the New Zealand Government to reign itself in at this time. They are untethered from public constraint.

The next step is bringing the fast-degrading state of human rights in Aotearoa (as per the case Self-Sovereignty Faith vs Crown Corporation under the HRC) to the attention of international human rights groups.

Publicity is an effective way of holding organisations to account which is why we share the following:


Re: Human Rights Complaint: 0036342

Dear XXXX,

Thank-you for the work you’ve done on this complaint.

Here is feedback on your ‘senior legal advice’ stating Self-Sovereignty Faith members have no basis for a discrimination claim’ regarding mandatory vaccination:

Firstly, it was disappointing that whoever wrote this advice didn’t put their name to it (and still hasn’t despite repeated requests.) Why is that?  Issuing messages from behind non-personal, abstract titles like ‘senior legal advisor’ smacks of erecting screens to avoid personal scrutiny.

Your Advisor misquoted our complaint in the rejection email as per the highlighted:

Original – 

The New Zealand Government passed the Covid 19 Response Act which, under powers granted by section 11 to ‘order measures for the prevention of Covid 19’, breaches our religious doctrine…

Misquote –

The NZ Government passed the Covid 19 Response Act which under powers granted by section 11 to order measure for the prevention of Covid 19, breaches our religious doctrine…

Original – 

it places the relationship between the C19HRA and the NZBORA in a grey area at best …

Misquote –

… it places .the relationship between the C19HRA and the NZBORA in a grey area at bets  …


These are but a few examples showing the Human Rights Commission has reproduced sections of our complaint with spelling and grammar mistakes throughout. This misrepresentation makes our submission appear ‘slap-dash’ to a third party. More pertinently, however, it shows the lack of time and serious consideration given to us – a quick ‘fob-off’ is the apt description. Please recall how you delayed our complaint process by weeks to obtain this legal advice which, accurately speaking, could have been written in fifteen minutes.  

Now to quote (correctly) your ‘senior lawyer [SL]’:

We consider there is no basis for a discrimination claim based on mandatory vaccinations, since s 11(a)(vii) only empowers the Government to require people to report for medical examination or testing;’ 

Here the SL merely ‘cherry-picks’ a part of the Act to then state it doesn’t allow for mandatory vaccination. What about section 11, 1(a) where people can be ordered to comply with ‘ANY specified measures’ to prevent the outbreak of Covid 19? Surely mandatory vaccination could be a ‘specified measure’ (or is the SL saying otherwise?)

This issue was clearly laid out in our documents yet the HRC hasn’t dealt with, referenced, or responded to it in any way. Why?

Possibly to avoid awkward repercussions, you’ve used the disclaimer that your advice ‘should not be considered a legal opinion.’ I can see why. It’s utterly lacking in any serious analysis and wouldn’t stand up to a modicum of proper scrutiny.

As we know from the court’s judgement in the recent Borrowdale challenge, the New Zealand Government acted illegally in its rollout of Lockdown. It has also acted against the law by awarding itself powers to override basic human rights with the C19HRA. No government should ever be empowered to order armed officers into homes without a warrant to detain citizens and subject them to ‘any specified measures.’ This is never acceptable and is something that the Human Rights Commission would rile against if its motivations were in keeping with its name. This is supposed to be your jurisdiction! Judging by the curt, irrational dismissal of the Self-Sovereignty Faith complaint, you are remiss in doing your duty.

Could conflicts of interests explain this failure to act? When you mentioned being funded by the Ministry of Justice, much fog cleared. Was our complaint a na├»ve expectation that the Government would investigate the Government? Does the HRC not want to bite the hand that feeds it?

Many of the New Zealand Government’s startling over-reaches during Covid have been at the behest of the World Health Organisation. Paul Hunt, head of the HRC, states on your website that he has worked with WHO. Can Self-Sovereignty Faith members be sure of his impartiality?

This is a pivotal point in Aotearoa history. Without checks and balances on power, we compromise our children’s future. En masse New Zealander’s are daylighting what’s being done under the pretext of ‘emergency.’ How is the Human Rights Commission appearing under this extra luminosity?

I have put considerable unpaid time and effort into lodging this complaint; not to satisfy some whim or quirky interest but because our members are deeply concerned with this breach of our religious freedom.

Sadly, it must be concluded that we will not get a fair hearing or appropriate diligence from you.

Options to be pursued now include contacting international Human Rights groups about what’s transpired here. Dissemination of details surrounding the shoddy dismissal of our complaint is something I’ll apply vigour to. Members of our organisation include journalists, political candidates and those with social media profile.

Having to take such steps is tiresome but necessary given the gravity of our situation.

I hope whoever reads this reflects deeply on the specific content and the wider implications.


James McLean

Postscript –

The following excerpts are from the final email exchange I had with the HRC case mediator. In light of the Nuremburg court’s finding that ‘just following orders’ doesn’t absolve responsibility, it speaks volumes:

Me – “…On a personal note, let me ask a direct question: Do you think the New Zealand Government should have the powers detailed in C19HRA?”

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.