Posted on 3-2-2003

Human Rights No Official In NZ
Press statement from Ike Finau, Auckland 31 Jan03

Firstly, the question is the Bylaw, not cost for lawyers.

My supporters and I have asked Ms Wilson, the Attorney-General, to approve
the Bylaw as complying with the Bill of Rights Act 1990, but most
importantly, with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. To date
Ms Wilson has not done so.

Secondly, the Governor-General, who was a Judge, has been asked to give the
Bylaw the Royal Assent. This will prove to the United Nations that the
Queen supports human rights violations in New Zealand, allowable because
Parliament has not fully incorporated the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights into New Zealand law. The United Nations Human rights Committee has
criticised New Zealand in 1995 and again in 2002 for not protecting ALL New
Zealanders rights.

I am doing the job on the United Nations behalf because ALL our politicians
and the New Zealand Human Rights Commission have failed to do so.

I am waiting for the Queen's statement to the letter, written by the Rupa
family, which was faxed to the Governor-General on the 20th January 2003 to
pass on to her Majesty.

Authorised by a loyal subject,

Ike Finau."

Copy of the Rupa family letter to the Governor General:

OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND: 20 January 2003

A site of New Zealand’s legal violation of human rights, 103 Wellington St,
Freeman’s Bay, Auckland.


Dear Governor-General,

Yourreasons for not responding to the Rupa Family’s letters and carrying
out the action requested of you are required in light of the following.

On September 19 2001, you were asked if you had informed Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II that abuses to New Zealanders’ human rights were not only
occuring, but that Parliament was unwilling to provide protection even
though Ministersincluding Helen Clark were fully informed of this
correspondence.

Days after 10 December last year (International Human Rights Day), MPs and
Judges were granted increases to their incomes. Equal speed and
consideration is now demanded of our MPs to fully protect all New
Zealanders human rights.

It was stated in a letter received on 24 September 2001 from your Official
Secretary, Hugo Judd: “No reply was sent to your letter since the
Governor-General does not accept that the New Zealand parliament has in
any way violated human rights.”

On 6 December 2001 you were asked to produce evidence supporting this
statement. To date, you have not done so. Given your extensive United
Nations and legal background, we find it very hard to believe that you
would not have known of the criticisms of New Zealand’s human rights
legislation by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The United Nations Human rights Committee ‘Concluding Observations of the
Human Rights Committee: New Zealand 07/08/2002, states: “8 Article 2,
paragraph 2, of the Covenant (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1948) requires States parties to take such legislative or other measures
which may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in the
Covenant.

In this regard the Committee regrets that certain rights guaranteed under
the Covenant are not reflected in the Bill of Rights, and that it has no
status than ordinary legislation. The Committee notes with concern that
it is possible, under the terms of the Bill of Rights, to enact legislation
that is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant and regrets that
this appears to have been done in a few cases, thereby depriving victims
of any remedy under domestic law.

The State party should take appropriate measures to implement all the
Covenant rights in domestic law and to ensure that every victim of a
violation of Covenant rights has a remedy in accordance with article 2 of
the Covenant.”

In 1995, the United Nations Human Rights Committee in their “Concluding
Observations of the Human Rights Committee New Zealand 13/10/95, stated:
“176 The Committee regrets that the provisions of the Covenant have not
been fully incorporated into domestic law and given an overriding status
in the legal system. Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Covenant requires
States parties to take such legislative or other measures which may be
necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in the Covenant are not
reflected in the Bill of Rights, and that it does not repeal earlier
inconsistent legislation and has no higher status than ordinary
legislation. The Committee notes that it is expressly possible, under the
terms of the Bill of Rights, to enact legislation contrary to its
provisions and regrets that this appears to have been done in a few cases.

The Committee expresses concern about the absence of express provision for
remedies for all those whose rights under the Covenant or Bill of Rights
have been violated.”

The United Nations Human Rights Committee knows that human rights in New
Zealand have been violated – why don’t you? Have you been deceitful in
failing to pass this correspondence outlining New Zealand human rights
violations to the Queen – because you know that your statement, “The
Governor-General does not accept that the New Zealand parliament has in any
way violated human rights.” has no foundation, which is why you did not
dare to pass this correspondence on to the Queen?

On 21 December 2002, you were informed by Dilip Rupa’s handwritten note on
your letter, that Ike Finau was to be imprisoned for 21 days for having
signs on his property saying “God Save the Queen” and “Loyal Royal”
embodied in the Union Jack. He also has a “GE Free Zone” sign.