Human Rights for NZ children and UN CROC
Call for assistance – from Benjamin Easton:
The inappropriate (if not unlawful) discrimination against the child is direct. The indirect as unlawful discrimination is against fatherhood.
A child is protected under UNCROC to an association with dad. The process of assisted human reproductive technology as protected relative to the care of children under the COC has breached that protection. An ethicist on Sunday exposed this as unethical behaviour. That behaviour needs to be measured against the present policy in New Zealand.
Bevan Berg has a complaint in before the Commission which can be identified and proved to have been directly as unlawfully discriminated against when making his submission to the Commission and the neglect of that complaint.
If the mens’ movement is to be effective and show its strength then we need to work together and not in discord.
The Human Rights Commission does not recognize unlawful gender discrimination and victimization of a male father . I have tried to point out clear breaches of human rights legislation , however, when the “tranny granny ” Human Rights Review Tribunal struck my case out and charged me $600.75 for bringing proceedings I was left feeling dog faced and hurt .
Hell will freeze over before I pay the corrupt bias feminazi’s a bloody cent !
In 2003 , Tim Barnett Labour MP told me personally that ” his government do not help fathers .”
Comment by dad4justice — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 7:14 am
Pete,
I’m going up to the HRC, next week and tabling another complaint on DNA testing. As I read the legislation it is unlawfully discriminatory proceedure and I want to know what they say. As I hope you read I presently have a complaint in with them on the hospital proceedures asking the questions on domestic violence. This too is gender discrimination. Interestingly June Crane wrote back to me around two weeks (as I remember) after I registered the complaint, saying that they needed longer, without giving reason as to why – which I don’t have any problem with at all. They have a serious problem. The longer they take to figure out that the solutions will; only be discovered in dialogue with Bevan and those others suggested that can sort out these problems, the better they will be equipped to approach those solutions in a manner most acceptable to the general public.
However, my point is that I need your file. I want to look at it and compare it to the legislation. If your points were accurate and ignored then I will table a complaint on your behalf. If your points were directed inefficiently, but enough to be recognisable, I can assist you to enter an appeal process. If, as I suspect your case ran into the realm of direct challenge on the judiciary and it was drawn to your attention that the judiciary and the courts are off limits to the HRC then (1) Good on you for not paying (2) The legislation is quite clear the judiciary are not vulnerable to the HRC.
If the reply from the Commission does say that, and that was your challenge, then the information you have collated, is worth its cost. You hold a valuable example on how the practices in place disempower the citizenship from justiciable access to democratic process and truth. So I need you case.
Can you post it please either to PO Box 24415 Manners St Wellington, or email to [email protected]
Cheers –
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 10:49 am
I’ve just placed an inquiry if necessary leading to a complaint with the HRC on Family Proceedings Act 1980 s.47.
I am suggesting that there is no saving available to make it a demonstrably justifiable limitation in a free and democratic society, where the only possible applicable saving would be under the Human Rights Act 1993 s.74 (a). I anticpate hearing back fairly soon as to whether my inquiry can upgrade to a complaint.
Ideally, if any have time, I suggest you type in to google “NZ Statutes”, and check up these two pieces of legislation.
Then go to s.21 (a) of the Human Rights Act and read about discrimination against sex.
If I am right then it will be an excellent entry into the more difficult territory of the Crimes Act 1961, (cannot remember the section) – of male assaults female. This position will be more likely impossible to argue as not being a demonstrably justified limitation in a free and democratic society, but what it would cause is a debate on whether or not we have applied necessary and affective attention to the issue of women’s (specifically to determine gender issue) associable forms of violence.
On Monday I will go up to the Ombudsman’s office and realise my complaint on the Court proceedings of my case and additionally table and establish a second complaint with the Ombudsman relevant to CYFS not effecting their responsibilities under s.7 Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 14th September 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Last week was one of the heaviest weeks I have had in all of my protesting.
The reason for this is quite simple. It is because, as a society, we are starting to reach the sensitive areas that are traditionally protected from overt scrutiny.
This is not to say that these areas where a system has been functional in its corruption are now open and exposed, as they are not. But it is to say that we, all, collectively are in a region where the misfortune from our own ability to manipulate circumstances, bending them into our favour, so to operate where we get an advantage over the next person is vulnerable to criticism.
Now Paul Catton here, will be berating me off line. I am under instruction to write using a language that is simple to comprehend, is not political and is not legal. I am taking advantage of this opportunity before writing next week to another audience in an attempt to achieve that affect. I am writing here to plead with those who would pride themselves for their tenacity and their courage, as champions for men; champions for their sons and daughters, where they have been victims in a gender oppression. I ask you to comprehend English, by reading carefully and thinking about what it is that is being said.
I was pleased last week for real and proactive communication with a politician. It has taken a long time to get to a place where a politician under criticism has replied as if the issue is more important than the circumstances. Judy Turner was asked questions and she replied answering directly to those questions. I was pleased last week for effective dialogue with an employee from the Human Rights Commission, where at last I felt I was given the respect to feel like I am human. To me it feels odd that I should need to write that I do not feel like I have been treated as if I am human by our Human Rights Commission.
I thought this was the place a citizen would go if they were to be protected against their abuse in human rights activities. And this is the topic of this letter. Do we need to be protected? Are we right?
Are you: and your sons and daughters, really discriminated against? Or is this just fiction? Maybe your dreaming? Maybe your wrong? Maybe you are making a fuss out of something that doesn’t exist? Maybe you are just a whinger and a whiner: Are you?
In a sense “we” the people of the menz movement, (to put a coin on a phrase) are guilty of not comprehending our circumstances. If we cannot recognise why we could be right, then how can we possibly claim to be right – it makes no sense. We do know how we feel. We know that we are sad and often angry, but do we know if we are right?
Collectively we do not know if we are right. As sure as we men might be uncertain if our children are of our own, we figure that we are. You think you are right because you feel it, yet you do not know if it is true. So the question becomes: so who cares – and the answer is, obviously – noone.
Noone has to care if you do not know why you could be right. All they have to do is to take an account of their own responsibilities and function to those responsibilities. Their job is to do their job and not to become embroiled in the overly difficult emotional minefields of any individual disaffected from their perception of their own situation. This is why it has been so suprising for me that the Human Rights Commission has rejected to affect the remedies that would be necessary if there is, in fact, an unlawful discrimination against fathers and their relationship with their sons and daughters.
Through the last couple of weeks I have had a running battle with Murray Bacon, on and off line. Part of the building effect of this battle has seen him post a rewrite of my letter challenging him to embrace what it is that I have been trying to express to this readership as frustratingly unsuccesful. And I am grateful that he applied the energy to present my argument in this way. My challenge of Murray and the readership was to ring the Human Rights Commission and ask them the question I am asking above. Are men and fathers discriminated against? Are their sons and daughters discriminated against? Is this belief a fiction or not? I don’t think anyone has taken up on my challenge. Which means in my view, that noone, still really knows if their argument against the State is properly or legally justified.
Judy Turner has replied to my question and thereby provided the necessity from within parliament to frame a challenge on the operations of government as inclusive with the function, or lack of that function with the Human Rights Commission.
If someone is much bigger than you, and worse, if they control your income, which is affectively your ability to stay alive, providing for your dependents, then challenging them for any inconsistency in their operation is quite a daunting task. It should be noted that just last week the Human Rights Commission has come out and spoken against the planned reform of the Electoral reform legislation, so the task is not necessarily so daunting that it cannot be achieved. Yet when you are talking about the body about which you could complain being guilty of impropriety in an area and region to which you are primarily sympathetic the task is that much more difficult. And this is what I believe has happened that has made life so difficult for thousands of families in New Zealand, and throughout our history of human rights abuse. It is acceptable to allow a neglect of a public to occur, if that event is in some way acceptable to those individuals who have the authority and remit to oversee its performance.
Is fatherhood indirectly and unlawfully discriminated against? Are children unnecessarily, and thereby improperly directly discriminated against? The answer, quite simply is Yes.
This next week is going to be more difficult than last week. Because as I pointed out, what happens is that when an area, or an issue is agitated and exploited it is easy to aggrevate and its circumstances inflame. People can become defensive and naturally do not perform at their best. Concentration becomes harder and integrity gets further away as the need for the individual to survive the adversity most often outweighs the common good and or the public interest.
Where it is that the menz movement have not yet compiled the argument to justify their reactionary behaviour, this letter is most important for you any to consider. Because if you are wrong, (or in this case if I am wrong) then we are as guilty as any you would charge of unethical or immoral behaviour. Yet if you are right, then you are objectively justified to exercise your annoyance at how your human rights have been abused to the limit of your ability where not acting in any way with physical or abusive violence.
In the Hansard 53 V641, 21 August to 23 August Rick Barker, the Minister for the Courts makes a very telling statement on this discrimination and its association with the Family Court Matters Bill presently before the House of Representatives. He says about DNA testing of a child on Page 11464, “Taking a bodily sample against a person’s will raises issues in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and common law rights about liberty and trespass, and privacy issues. There are also broader issues surrounding legal parenthood issues, such as the implication of assisted human reproductive technologies and who can and should be recognised as a parent”.
At the moment what he is talking about, suggesting that parliament is looking at these issues, is the rights of women as relative to sons or daughters born of their bodies. At the moment, women under s74 of the Human Rights Act are entitled preferential treatment respectful of childbirth and pregnancy. Yet they are not allowed to control the identity of a child. At the moment this is what the law has taken for granted. That for natural purposes, it must be accepted and for obvious reasons, that the mother and the child are of the same body. This thinking has become manifest. It is not protected by the law. It is an assumptive response to achieve the same kind of preferential treatment established by s.74 without the legal description being provided. This means that the father, even though a natural parent, is indirectly discriminated against. The direct discrimination of this established practice giving preferential treatment ot the mother is against the child. Dad has to ask mum if he is the natural parent because only mum could know. Only women are protected – and if they should be telling a lie then the only means possible to determine that lie requires Court proceedings. This is not fair, and this is not legal. Preferential treatment, because of s.74 cannot stretch that far. A natural parent should not have to employ the function of a Court in order to find out if the other human they love, or are responsible for is in fact of their body. That should not be the Court’s jurisdiction.
It is interesting that Rick Barker made his referral to the technology of assisted human rights technlogy, because as this readership is aware, when the legislation protecting the practice of that technology for its relationship with children was made, it was not made properly. Additionally it dismissed the existing protection for a child of Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Rick Barker was right to make his comment. DNA testing has a direct correlation with an event that occured on June 11th 2003. The COC, was put in wrong. The assumption that a woman had the prerogative right to demand that the relationship between her and child was bound to her authority as the only guaranteed natural parent, was exactly that; an assumption.
That view was not protected by law.
What’s happened so far is the bureaucracy have been pretending that this observation on the events, doesn’t exist. The Human Rights Commission has acted in the same way, pretending that it does not have the function to protect children from such as this information describes an abuse of their natural as human rights. And I ask why?
I have already been to court to have all of this reviewed. But I was kicked out of the Court. Bevan has a complaint in with the Human Rights Commission, which asks them to investigate this issue, and the Human Rights Commission has replied with, “which section?”. The problem is obvious – surely?
The question I ask you folk: if you can believe me that the child is being discriminated against, as a natural father is treated in a way different from the mother, is what will you (non violently) do about it? Who would you ask to see if this information is correct?
If you for your own energies are justified that men are being treated illegally and badly, if you are right and children are being unnecessarily discriminated against by a practice that cannot justify its reason, if that unjustifiable reason has been exploited to a degree where a woman would have a child extinguishing that son or daughters developmental association with their natural as biological father, what will you do to protect those men and their sons and daughters?
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 23rd September 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Before catching the overnight bus to return to Wellington, I felt it was urgent to reply to Rodney Hide’s efforts to draw the Human Rights Commission to direct negotiations on changes to the Electoral Finace Bill. The HRC have made an open and conflictory statement on the Bill, saying it is a fundamental breach to the freedom of speech and should be scrapped. Mark Buton has quoted Canadian law, as commonly used to compare states and countered that it is within those limitation that should be demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The opposition of governmnet’s view disagree saying that the Electoral Finance Bill seriously limits with punitive provision all those who could oppose the acts or practice of the government for up to a period of 11 months in an election year.
I am not sure of the history but believe it is very unlikely that this strong stance by the HRC has ever been taken before. For the HRC to say that new legislation should be scapped is obviously most unprecedented.
While Rodney Hide’s comments are still subject to review, it could be argued that he has created the grounds that are equal to the conditions of an upper house. Under section. 5 of the HUman Rights Act 1993 the powers of the Human Rights Commission are really quite interesting. Unlike any other department that I have read about so far, the HRC Chief Commissioner (presently Rosslyn Noonan) has the authority to publish any report, to improve the public’s awareness on any issue that is directly connected to issues of human rights. This power is extraordinary and I would argue is the exercise of the present position. The Chief Commissioner has taken unprecedented ground and said the “something is seriously wrong with what is happening in New Zealand”. If anyone would argue this position I would dearly like to debate their view, because if I am right the event signals new and untravelled territory in this nation. It is fair and proper that those who challenge parliament should be debating changes that are directly in their favour as much as they could ever be against. So please, if you disagree with my assessment anser my question:
Is it not unusual that the HRC has asked the Labour led government to totally scrap new and pending legislation because it is comprehensively inconsistent with human rights? If your answer is “no” then please be precice on why. I am interested to read the case studies that should say that confidence in parlaimentary authority has not been totally undermined.
Assuming that my view is correct there are two points that I want to write about. The first is my presentation to the problem given that I have a leading complaint in with the HRC on the hospital policy, and the second is where the menz movement can be relative to this change in circumstances.
The first is straight forward. I have written to parliament and the HRC and advised that on Rodney Hide’s inquiries of parliament I am confident to stal any pressure on the hospital complaint. As some are aware I was in a state, likely this week where I was going to exercise that pressure. So I am pleased for Rodney Hide’s actions because I do not wish for the pressure that I could apply for that complaint to damge New Zealand’s fabric of developent and social harmony. I have also added that my view to remove any pressure does not constitute the necessity for the complex problems I have raised to be excused, but certainly are better to be handled as if the complaint does not exist.
There are likely many purists or separatists on this reading list who would demand a greater position of pressure to be applied to an already reeling administration. But why? What does it achieve if the problem is already under control?
The second point is far more complex, and the guard of the menz movement should be raised and advanced. Rodney Hide is very clever. I credit him as one of the most skilfull politicians in the House today. He along with others in opposition to the standing government will want to exact precise damage on a reeling administration. The points that are done in damage will be reflected to be points on which shall be directly capitalised ands those who make the greatest mileage will get the biggest percentage cut of return in votes. How this will be done, will be by converting the accepted as corrupted breaches on freedoms in speech as duely indicative of corruption in any issue the exploiter would promote. There is no difference in this to the non government sector, who will want to push their barrow with their public in order to gain their new ground from the problems extractable from a reeling government. So why should the menz movement be any different?
Realistically this tactic of advance is already under control from my application in point 1. But it would be as weak as the menz movement is presently weak if the body of that politic did not recognise the problem for what it is. The problem isn’t just about Labour. The problem is how our system has been developed to function on the back of an occupied dad. Fathers’ are the back bone of the workforce. Crumble the backbone and everything will follow. I accept that this view may not be widely accepted or at least concurred at this point of my argument if everything I have been saying hasn’t been rationalised to what I am saying. This is the present difficulty the menz movement has. We would fight over a po9int before giving it due thought. Additionally we would act to gain power from any perceived weakness without thinking through that weakness in order to determine if in fact a weakness it may be. Invariably the menz movement will have overlooked its position of strength, clasping at hopelessness and righteousness as these justifiable conditions mean as much to everyone else and without exception slumping into the floor bound to comply and obviously concur that men at work are men at work are men again at work.
So what I have said above is that parliament has an intention to carry on, accepting the bells, whistles and baubles of recognition that Labour has overstepped the mark on human rights limitations and carry on it will: yet, so far it hasn’t accepted that the grounds for which it was bound to change have been scored by fathers saying “you” are treating us extremely badly. And where it gains its new grounds in power, that new power will take up the old and fading slack and fathers will continue without an effective rationalisation of (why?) they are the score that has first to be settled being surmised and society will dribble on, wounding more children destroying more and more and more dads: all the while so ignorant in bliss. So the summary of point two is quite clear. If the menz movement let political parties take over the grounds where Labour is challenged for its abuse of power, it, ever again will be that sad, slow and sometimes very lonely last cab of the rank.
The good news is: against all predictions the Human Rights Commission have stepped up and they are in the ring. Rodney Hide is their archer, the direction of the arrow is still fully to be pointed and the menz movement can still capitalise on the weight of the pending blow’s full affect. A simple instrument for dad’s and a very different tactic from our previous position of stance might be to directly encourage and thank the HRC for the good work they have done.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fatherscoalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 24th October 2007 @ 10:50 am
While waiting for the bus I visited the Court simply to keep my mind and experience on relevant issues and came upon a most unusual event that too demanded URGENT attention. I was directly excused from the Court for my conntribution to those unusual circumstances and wrote directly to Rick Barker about them. I have asked him to reply. I was fairly non specific in my letter as I am being fairly non specific here but I have suggested he pay some attention to what I am discussing.
Similarly, my study to be a protester on family law issues was to visit the Waitakere District Court on an almost daily basis. I studied lawyers, registrars, judges, court appointed groups and in general got quite a good handle on the various mechanisms and practices. This was valuable yesterday where I witnessed nearly every official in the part of the case I watched had compromised their duty to practice, extraordinarily directly invlovling me as possibly a necessary witness. There are several points in this that I would make to Rick Barker if he decides to reply to my letter, (where I have made none definative so far), yet it was hard to figure out exactly what it was in the event thatI considered to be the worst. My biggest complaint should be the casualness of one particular lawyer who I rightly or wrongly assessed was for the defence. I think of all his was the worst example of simply not being an agent of either care or precision. He demonstrated little empathy with the extreme of what was going on, its impact, its meant future, for whom those implications had the greatest affect and (for why this was worst) that he didn’t seem to consider for even half a second that he held (if he was the lawyer for the defence) a responsibility of absolute control.
Obviously there is much more to this story, yet I will wait for Rick Barker to reply, if he does. Unfortunately, because of its nature I doubt I will get the liberty to say exactly what happened or make the direct points that I would as to what should have happened. For the evidence I heard, its impact on proceedings and the general behaviour exercised by those people employed in the courtroom I am interested in the results of the jury trial from Courtroom 8 of the Auckland District Court, October 23 2007.
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fatherscoalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 24th October 2007 @ 11:19 am
Good news folks.
Talks begin. Watch this space.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 10th November 2007 @ 5:43 am
An interesting development today as I meet with the Human Rights Commission Treaty of Waitangi advocacy representatives this afternoon. I didn’t expect to be meeting with them as my inquiries were primarily to do with Noelle’s case. Yet I have announced my own hikoi by bicycle to Waitangi transporting a petition from parliament to parliament so it didn’t take much for the conversation to come around to this.
It is not practically reasonable to expect any reader to comprehend my argument that teh English version of the Treaty of Waitangi is not valid as not constiuted and I suggest illegal, where the Maori version of that treaty is consistent directly to its requirements in lore.
My advocay is for a redirection of national view to establish effectively the differences demanded by each political system and combine them to unity as better to enhance the considerable wealth, mana and wairua of this beautiful piece of land. Conflict is not necessary as nor is exploitation of the differences of each primary culture by that culture for the exclusive demand by culture security to gain financial reward for those values. From a fatherscoalition perspective parenting is as much affected by cross culture as it is recognised by any culture that the children require support and protection from harm.
Obviously, Noelle’s case is more simple where it is smaller and already directly isolated to the principle points of argument. The Domestic Violence Act is an independent jurisdiction. Because it has victims, I want it to take priority in any family law proceedings. It’s pretty much that simple. In Noelle’s case we just have to establish and prove beyond reasonable doubt that these rules exist to be supported and those who have been responsible in the case have not been consistent with the rules.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 16th November 2007 @ 11:24 am
2 hours and 20 minutes later. I had a long discussion with Bill Hamilton on the Treaty of Waitangi issues. Finding a consistency to views across the country as to establish any set of principles that will allow us progressively to define unity seems to me unlikely. This is not to say that the discussion was any of adversarial, without prospect or unproductive. Yet as anyone who is familiar with the kinds of previous comments around my writing, where I demand that everyone begins to pay attention to that which is objective, as against subjective, the subjective is so deeply entrenched into the psyche of the Public Servants and other citizens that even when that view is neglected by its employee as against paid for by the public interest there is little room for the objective to prosper. That doesn’t mean that I plan to sit down, and nor does it mean that my comments which are still alive as contestable to objective debate were dismissed or upheld by Bill, it just means that we have this lumberign machine called society that does what it will because our duly elected politicians, be they of kind heart or other simply consider that their views are closest to God.
I’m pretty sure Winston Peters said in the House the other day “To err is human to forget divine”. Sounds like another Tui add to me.
Yet saying thhis and given his speech on Human Rights yesterday and how in NZ it is the people who are at the bottom of the chain who set the schedules of our human rights, he might just be starting to remember one or two things from the past. So nothing really concrete from that meeting. I’ve just pointed out to Bill that there are a couple of large piles of shingle and some bags of cement sitting beside the mixer and the wheelbarrow, suggesting that I don’t plan to stop demanding that the rule of law SHALL be exercised, as consistent to the Crimes Act 1961 and that ignorance of law is no excuse. He made a couple of comments that I will need to research in regards to the law and in all our views were highly compatable. The difference is as he agreed his views are progressive and mine are aggressive. Mine are aggressive. We are talking about massive levels of child abuse that noone really seems that prepared to register.
The second meeting with Penny (didn’t take into account her last name) on Noelle’s case was far more productive. The HRC policy suggests that every person is protected from domestic violence abuses for their policy. Not so it seems for Noelle against lawyers. The Victims Rights Act is not enforable. This means that Court administrators and those others of the legal protection are loosely bound to codes of behaviour that are considerate of the victim. So that’s why hundreds will say (1) You are not interpreting violence as according to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and (2) Why did you ask me to sell teh house to cover your fees when you never listened to me that my children have been alienated against me and that I have been the subject of extraordinary violence that noone seems to want to take into account?
Optimally the HRC will get a letter outlining my questions by Monday ready for Noelle’s submission on Tuesday.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 16th November 2007 @ 3:46 pm
This is my reply to the reply from the HRC after my meeting yesterday.
Kia ora Bill,
(not edited 1 BCC)
thank you for meeting with me and this reply. It was good to test out my points of view where they have not been tested other than for my own thinking and research. I respect that you see no need to conclude on behalf of the Commission to the legal arguement I present that there is no signature to validate the English Laws Act 1858, where constituted on January 14th 1840 directly and as inconsistent to that proclamation, the Declaration of Independence 1835.
I appreciate as well that you comprehended my view that: the Declaration and the adoption of the translated to English Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi offers this country an instrument in race relations progress where the two cultures of The Crown and Tangata Whenua can establish their own institutions of political practice. You are aware that I believe this adoption would amicably develop these political practices to network, link and embed every citizen’s association with these practices and policy. I am certain that my energy, for your agreement to the principles I espouse must have appeared energetic, enthusiastic, but if not more obviously the vision of an ideal fool to naivity.
I recognise, of course, that you are not well versed in my argument to prove that the manner and form requirements of the then Attorney General on the Care of Children Bill June 10th 2003 were directly breached. During our conversation I made it plain to you that i have had comprehensive discussions with the Commission on this point and that the Chief Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan has argued against my observations that s.7 of teh New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 constitutes a manner and form requirement. I have not yet written back to the Commission advising her of the irrelevance of the Commission’s argument where s.6 of the Act overrides her and the Minister of Justice’s view on these facts. Section.7 of the BORA is the interpretation that Shall be preferred to any other meaning. This means that all I have to prove is that I presented the information to the Courts so that they could rule on these facts.
It is at this point at my argument where I have abandoned present protocols. To enter the Courts with evidence on political corruption that is then subverted through judicial corruption into alleged processes is too alarming a fact to ignore by continuing to observe any forms of acting due process. These facts make the situation in our country particularly volotile and exceptionally dangerous given that the present protocols bringing two nations together are built into provable as corrupt practices.
During our conversation you made reference to law in an Act that I did not properly register that validated the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. Can you please send me that information so I can research it agaisnt my argument. As it was I was overtalking you telling you that the present repeal of the sedition laws were a direct act of sedition in themselves where I have instiuted a demand that the protections from corruption instiuted in that legislation are being disassembled in order to protect the corruption with whiich the country is now so deeply exposed.
While I do not wish to appeal your decisions and thinking as demonstrated during our meeting I do wish to remind you that the faulted Care of Children Bill broke the acting sovereign authority prior to the Seabed & Foreshore, the Supreme Court and Civil Unions legislation.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 17th November 2007 @ 7:35 am
There are three reasons I see why my writing would slowly erodes replies or other contributions that evoke conversation. The first and ordinarily the most likely is that mine is the writing of a bore, as difficult to read and if traditionally English pompous. The second is that some of it is like that, yet when the issues are thought through they appear accurate. The third and I hope contains some degree or group in rational thinking is that what I am saying holds sense, and backed up with the action there is a need to pay those views greater attention.
For my part, my frustration is that I have been saying much the same things from day one. Sure, my ability to write and articulate those views improves and even my punctuation gets better as I am forced to think through on how to make myself more coherent and easier to comprehend.
My difficulty is different. The commitment I have and hold to what I am doing is all encompassing: well, nearly all encompassing.
In human science at the moment, or for those views I have heard so far being developed over Radio New Zealand National, and in other forms of communication, is a developing view of proof that nature is developed from nurture. To this end of philosophy, after some time, people will begin to believe what I am saying, because I keep on saying it. This kind of unrelenting pressure readjusts the kinds of studies that get done and eventually everyone begins to develop a similar view and that view is marketed in everyday conversations and a society starts its road in development, taking for granted as rule and principle developing protocol and laws as rational and reasonable. Life becomes the drug no matter if it is bad. So making this observation and being fully aware and responsible to what I am saying, as well believing what I am saying where does this place any reader? What if I’m just all full of pomposity, a self indulgent bore with an indirect and resident hate for women?
Then you would know that.
On the last point, the behaviour that would be most sinister for what I write would be if I had a resident hatred for women. That view would override and out justify any of the principles that I want to impart to any readership where it would look again for mmale supremacy with women back in the kitchen, without love and under the order of life to care for those others in their family if not expanding that subservience into that immediate community. It would be an Order:like you SHALL do this. It would make me guilty in the strereotype patriarchal thinking, and if I was in any way successful with my message society eventually would once again be oppressed.
Bore or pompous I might be, delusional on occassions, but the last thing any could claim of my writing or behaviour is that I hate women. Without women humans are nothing.
For some reason the energies in our society have developed into a fashion of fiction. The reverse has been made true for men.
For my argument, that which is labelled in this as chauvinist: Under the Care of Children Act, where single women (as without a cohabitating male partner) are entitled to have a child with the child losing the child’s existing protections to an association with their biologigal father, that extinguishment of rule and practice to develop law and protocol was established.
It damaged the hetrosexual male by discriminating him out of the family unit as to protect any child. If that was a deliberate action by those in, and with such power and the rule of patriarchy which was to be disestablished was directly linked as the author of oppression through rule, order, process or protocol then that would be the bastion to undermine as best to undermine patriarchy. So on which better rule to remove due process than the rule that kept fathers with their offsping.
Think about it.
Cheers.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 18th November 2007 @ 8:59 am
Working through Noelle’s case is quite mind numbing. The institution of a legal fraterninty that has developed to its power without an ability to directly check its capacity to abuse that power is simply unbelievable.
The good news from Noelle’s position is that the argument she presents on objective principles, that which is Directed by the Court to be presented by Tuesday, in so many areas is completely indefensible.
With Allan Radford’s case as open to compare these behaviours with the behaviours of bias and discrimination by the CYFS workers as noted by the Court to his situation, that which gutted him financially of a reasonable life because his domestic situation developed or arrived into extremes of intervention profound. That the murder by John La Roche of his partner in a Palmerston North Court where he had been made to suffer a torture of not being able to protect his daughters from rape by those given the responsibility in guardian care should be detailed in an old yet still pertinent coloumn by Stuart Birks (NZ scholar) most valuable.
“Powerful people will afford an education of never to have to learn”.
So I can confidently predict that an affirmation on her objective principle as presented before the Court on Tuesday with Counsel for Court and other party to reply in seven days: that principle that demonstrates significant pattern against the public interest of the Court missing the point and the lawyers getting paid is an absolute in certainty.
If not then we will need some gutsy protesters to get ready for Palmerston North.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 18th November 2007 @ 9:19 am
Plain English.
The reference is to the Nine to Noon interview this morning and particularly Minute 6.39. My apoogies that transferring the direct link didn’t work.
Some may think that the reference is consistent to my writing and I reply, fair enough, it is likely I can agree. However if you listen to the point of the minute and seconds around my question you will concur surely that there is now reason to support my observations on the faulted Care of Children Bill under section.7. Or is it still OK to say that sons and daughters must not be protected to associate with their biological dads (and mums)?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 19th November 2007 @ 11:13 am
I think it is possible that next week I will put in the full and most effective complaint to the Human Rights Commission. That is that the Care of Children Act is directly discriminatory of the child and disaffects their existing protections and that it is indirectly unlawfully discriminatory against fatherhood.
To date I have been using Bevan Berg’s similar complaint with the Commission when the Bill was introduced as reason enough to demand that the COmmission had been informed of the problem. My anger has been direct and specific to their neglect on this issue. Things, however, have changed somewhat over time and the emphasis in power has developed into a different realm. Act has instiuted the necessary directional pull and this makes it likely that I should put in the complaint sooner rather than later – getting the major problem engaged rather than waiting for the problems to be sorted ourt one after the other. If any disagree with this observation then they should make some comment before Wednesday.
On Monday I will respond to Gordon Copeland’s most excellent Point of Order prior to Question Time on Thursday. There is a policy in the House from a previous Speaker’s Ruling that says if a member of teh public attends a protest on Parliament Grounds then they are restricted fromt he Gallery for 24 hours. He is supported by Kieth Locke and where I received a reply from my initial email from the Act Party I believe they will rally to this point as well. I have mailed the Speaker to say that this ruling is unfair for me as my general priority is to go to the Gallery – so my ability to protest which is all that i do is curtailed considerably – my freedom of speech is as Gordon Copeland points out for one of his supporters who came up from Christchurch last week is arbitrarily extinguished. Additionally I have a Court case ruling that says this is improper where I had to spend 40 days in jail proving my point before the Courts.
The full effect of this, however entitles me to speak to the Speaker on a point of Order where so far, for every history she has been given her licence of prerogative to ignore me. Not this time! Thank you Gordon.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 24th November 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Today’s mail out.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tena koe Gordon Copeland,
I write to you in support of your point of order made to the Speaker before Question Time of Thursday 22nd November 2007.
You made an inquiry of a Speaker’s ruling that disallows a member of the public after attending a peaceful protest on the precinct of parliament grounds to enter parliament buildings and attend the gallery until 24 hours had passed. You objected that this ruling was arbitrary and asked the Speaker to reconsider its affect.
As you may be aware I attend the gallery as often as I can. My life, for nearly seven years has been directly committed to challenge national injustice. My focus in protest is on the injustice in family law practices that are directly detrimental to members of the primary family. By the term primary I mean the natural mother and natural father with their child or children, before or after any separation. My frustration over this long period is that I make obvious points, which seem to be absorbed into a state of perpetual neglect. I am directly affected by this Speaker’s ruling and have generally chosen to attend the gallery rather than to exercise my freedom to peacefully protest on parliament’s front lawn.
The substantive argument of my complaint in parliament is that every child has the protection to an association with their natural mother or father. In New Zealand, however, that protection was willfully disengaged with improperly constituted law as coordinated by the present Speaker of the House the Right Honourable Margaret Wilson when in 2003 she was the Attorney General. The Care of Children Bill 2003 was not constituted properly as according to its manner and form requirements. That manner and form requirement is yet to be properly debated. I deeply contest any view that suggests I could be wrong, as incorrectly interpreting texts, which in reality are obvious, even to the blind.
My probative argument is fundamental against an abuse of parliamentary privilege and to that end to compete with any corruption it is critical that it is open to a public debate. I believe it is wrong for the rights of citizens to be directly compromised by arbitrary decisions clearly expressing those views that are the most convenient for politicians in elected government.
I appreciate that your point of order should not act as a platform for me to launch into my speech. I emphasise that my point is about arbitrary limitations for your point of order rather than to force my complaints and protest to be heard. Any pressure placed on those kinds of arbitrary limits, which directly mitigate a citizen’s ability to effective protest, is appreciated. If your question helps to identify ongoing problems of parliamentary neglect to the public interest and abuse of the power of prerogative then it is of immediate benefit. I support you for your question on the Speaker’s ruling.
On July 1st 2003 I attended the gallery on the first reading of the Care of Children Bill. I had written a short speech that I intended to deliver to the Speaker during the reading of the Bill. I waited until the questions were over and the media had gone. As the Bill was read I read my speech aloud. The (acting) Speaker Ross Robertson advised the Sergeant — at — Arms that I should be removed. I was removed and trespassed. I knew that this would occur yet for desperation felt it was my citizen’s duty to protest in this way.
I was claiming that the State was abusing children with the Bill allowing single women or lesbian couples to have children where removing the existing protections that every child has of association with their natural father. Every child is clearly protected to this association by Article 9 in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Additionally every child should be protected to an association with his or her natural father for section.17 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
I was also complaining that my own rights of association with my son and daughter had been severely compromised as demonstrated to this attitude where the relationship between the mother and the child is considered fundamental yet the relationship between the father and the child is treated in contempt as if it could be an expendable commodity. I allege that the Care of Children Act is clear in this proof of arbitrary behaviour and demonstrates a reprehensible as irresponsible attitude toward children as condoning of their damage or neglect. I allege fathers are incongruously wounded by its affect.
Having laid my complaint with the parliamentary police officer, Sergeant O’Connell, even though it had cost me a 2-year trespass from parliament, I was happy with the result. I waited to hear back from the Sergeant on my complaint. I waited until the 17th of July. I then recognised through the ongoing delay that my actions had been inconsequential. I enacted the trespass order. The Trespass Act 1980 has its own savings and justified me to act in an emergency. I believe parliament is still operating under the provisions of an emergency. It should be of no doubt to anyone that child abuse is an emergency. I bear no shame or guilt for my acts of trespass.
Once I arrived at parliament I activated the trespass order. I was arrested after being warned to leave and refusing. I refused bail because I demanded urgency, urging the Court to deal with my case immediately rather than letting my issue get folded into any process, where my innocence was of no consequence. I wanted to directly challenge every politician for his or her elected to undignified and impoverished behaviour. I had to trespass three times and under this application of my urgency was imprisoned for a period of 40 days. Judge Walker heard my case properly on 15th and 16th September 2003. I represented myself.
My principal complaint is that I was forced to trespass because nothing that I was doing following the democratic processes, having made a submission on the Care of Children Bill, notifying the Justice and Electoral Select Committee of the inconsistency with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, was having any affect on the governing administration. Its own, as alleged legitimate authority, was acting in a direct inconsistency with the rules of protection to bind democracy in full and proper governance.
No one was listening to what I was saying.
In Judge Walker’s judgment he was very clear about the point on which you have founded your complaint to the Speaker.
[13] If it was open to the Speaker to issue a trespass notice, which specified a part of the parliamentary precincts on to which Mr. Easton could not go then it might not have been reasonable to exclude him from the whole place. A trespass notice, which unnecessarily prohibited Mr. Easton from attending a Select Committee to make submissions, prohibited him from visiting his Member of Parliament or peacefully protesting on the lawn of parliament might be regarded as unreasonable.
That judgment was made on the 21st October 2003. I am certain that the Speaker’s Office would be bound to take a note of this judgment when considering how to apply rules that may be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Yet as I have now become deeply accustomed, some rights of the citizenship seem not to register with those people who have been elected or employed to an authority to protect our society.
It seems abundantly clear to me from Judge Walker’s statement that the only reasonable reason to exclude a person from the gallery after a peaceful protest on parliament’s lawn is that if their actions or demeanor were not peaceful. On no occasion in any event of my protesting can it be upheld that I have acted violently, by protest, or toward any my former wife, my son or daughter, or towards others engaged in these circumstances. Yet freedoms under the protections established and enshrined for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 are continually compromised and as your point registers, arbitrarily rescinded.
While I still pursue my points at the ongoing cost for the loss of my relationship with my son and daughter, even to a level of self appointed unjustifiable imprisonment, where Judge Walker dismissed all three charges of trespass against me, it still feels likely that my complaints shall continue to be ignored.
Hopefully, for the unique value you have instituted by making a point of order over a Speaker’s ruling, that has already been subjected to its own and direct test in the Court, you may be able to find the necessary instruments, and support, that can disengage any abuse against primary protections of the citizenship.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 26th November 2007 @ 11:41 am
I have decided not to table a complaint with the HRC on unlawful as indirect discriminations against fatherhood – or to establish a direct discrimination agaisnt children for the Care of Children Bill/Act, until other grounds, those that can disaffect any corruption of due process, can demonstrate their capacity against the resistant application.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 28th November 2007 @ 1:08 pm
I met with Marion Hobbs today. Marion is the Labour Wellington Central Member of Parliament. It was a succesful meeting. I have met with her once before in a meeting where mine was a late invitation. I was pleased that she made some comment about that meeting during our discussion. I had no need.
I had requested the meeting to discuss supervised access and the payment for that access. I had met earlier in the week with a representative of Barnardos. Barnardos is one of our largest child care providers who offer a service for supervised access. I was told in that meeting that supervised access was paid for where Court or CYFS ordered. As this was my specific goal, to ensure that the child’s rights of association with their natural parent were not compromised by market forces, and as well to ensure that parents ordered into the limited conditions of supervision were not further burdened under those extrem conditions with a cost that they may not be able to meet being imposed the information was provocative. As I have no order against me, yet I am subjected to supervised access as there is no protection for me against this demand being made by my former wife, it is clear that I am being discriminated against. It means that if I want to not have to pay for teh supervised access I have to go to the Court to apply for an order against myself so that I don’t have to pay.
Those who are familiar with my argument will know that I refuse to use the Family Court as a means to interfere with the problems I describe, because I can describe these problems to themm and I am not protected agaisnt their event. This is to say that the Court has no effective means to protect me against parent alienation syndrome yet forces me to use the Court if I want to see my children. The Court takes ownership of my children, over and above my natural rights of association as well as those protected to natural parenthood – (which are unextinguishable). I had a domestic protection order taken out against me on ridiculous allegations that I refused to defend in a biased and discriminatory Court because I could prove it is biased and discriminatory: Which I seem to be able to do without any trouble in any case I investigate, let alone for analysing laws like that of: male assaults female as against ordinary assault: or preferential treatment under the Human Rights Act. The protection order seems to create this unwritten demand over my democratic freedoms that my son and daughter and I should be forced to relinquish our rights to freedom in a democratic society simply because the acting administrations reckon that some freedoms are easier to relinquish than others. That disaffected fathers can prove that the Family Court has wrought extraordinary damage on an incredible number of families for its exploitative behaviours and practices must be about the greastest and noisiest kept secret of the legal profession.
So my situation is that I am being made again to use the Family Court if I want to see my children on equal terms with those people who have seriously hurt their children. I would need to write to the Court and tell them a whole lot of lies about how I have or could hurt my children so that I could get an order that I can only see them under supervised access conditions where because I am a protester and cannot afford to see them the Court could pay. That is of course assuming that my former wife would let me see them under supervised conditions which is now becoming more debatable by the moment. If I don’t use the Court I cannot see my children. I’m under no obligation to use the Court. And the Court is corrupt. They demand that people sell their houses in order to pay for lawyers before the case can be heard properly, fairly and reasonably. If anyone tries to tell me this isn’t true then I will prove them a liar.
So when I say this reads word for word with the Crime of Torture, does anyone pay attention? It is more “hang on Mr, this is the system, you have to use the Court”. I say “it is corrupt – why?”. They say – well because – you have to and we can keep your children from you until you agree” And I say “your corrupt”. They say “no we are not”. I say “prove it”
It was a good talk with Marion and I hope that Barnardos step up to the plate where I have asked them to express an opinion. I don’t think she has much choice really but to champion this cause into the Labour cabinet. After all they cannot prove that they have been following the manner and form requirements of making new legislation that now allows women not to provide a child with their natural inheritable right of an association with their natural masculine (father) influence. She handled it OK and we skipped lightly over some of the more difficult stuff of recent judicial behaviour.
(Not edited) more later.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 30th November 2007 @ 11:29 pm
This post is entered under this heading as it is eventually relevant to section 10 of the Victims of Crimes Act 2002, where there is no jurisdiction or provision to protect victims of domestic violence (including PAS) from exploitation from lawyers and other Family Court practitioners.
To:
Iain Watson,
NZLS Inspectorate
Gisborne, Hawkes Bay,
Manawatu, Wanganui,
Wellington & Nelson Districts
P.O. Box 5041, Lambton Quay,
Wellington 6145
[email protected]
3 December 2007,
Tena koe Iain Watson,
This letter is compiled as an Annex to an Application in the Feilding Court in a Property (Relationships) Act 1976 matter. It questions the capacity of a fair process to recognise and protect the requirements of judicial independence and natural justice.
It is written as a direct representation of the public interest, particularly for fathers on behalf of their sons and daughters. It is compiled in response to an extensive period where I claim justification to allege of unnecessary damage and exploitation as practiced by the legal profession. To this end the letter is published. The information enclosed from the Respondent to the proceedings is not. Nor is the information released naming the lawyers and practitioners sited by allegation.
I make this submission as a member of a body of fathers who, for a determination not to be labelled as an organisation, where we could be bound to that limitation, describe ourselves as of a father’s coalition.
My association with the proceedings is that the Respondent is making an application before the Court to have me appointed as her guardian ad litem.
The Respondent has assisted some of our fathers readying their stories for publication on the Internet. The reason she has requested my representation is because she is experienced as incapacitated to challenge an administration that could wilfully protect its professional conduct, bettering itself against her direct disadvantage and imposition. In these proceedings I hold the greater capacity to directly challenge that behaviour. My inquiry of the Inspectorate is whether it has greater power to interfere with any injustice that may be exposed. If the Inspectorate has such power, then I ask that you exercise that power.
In this case, I can isolate the Respondent allegations of the substandard behaviours of every legal practitioner involved in the proceedings. I write to you in request that you test some of these allegations, as I believe your employment requires. If in your investigation you find that there is merit to my purpose I invite you to employ every instrument at your legal disposal to interfere with an injustice that is very likely deep into its maturity. My direction will not vary until superseded by an authority acting responsibility to its natural obligation to the public interest.
You are likely familiar with the father’s coalition first strategy in holding protests outside the residential homes of politicians, lawyers, judges and other professionals contracted to, by, or representative in New Zealand’s family law. There are few men or women I know who associate themselves with this action that look on its event as anything but a means better to draw the proper attention to the plight of fathers subjected to extreme cruelty. My letter intends to qualify the likely damage to which fathers are victim who come before the Court in the acrimonious circumstances of a separation.
This damage is from a deeply embedded bias and unlawful indirect discrimination against fatherhood. I allege its practitioners have practiced this in parliament, in the Court and through society for an extensive period. My direct support for the Respondent, as supported by fathers of a father’s coalition, is directed at making this stop.
My challenge levelled on the administration of unlawful, as indirect discrimination against fatherhood is unique against those of others who have used the Family Court.
My experience is built from challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court as without the capacity to operate as the fair and proper institution to protect children to develop as protected from adult arguments and any tendencies to disaffect others through domestic violence. I have a son and a daughter. My son is now 16 years old and my daughter will turn 12 in February. I am a trained and experienced supervisor in early childhood education. I have strong references for my period working in this field.
My adherence to principle has meant that my contact with my son and daughter has been strangled. I have had approximately 40 hours contact with them in a period of seven years.
I have a protection order that was taken out against me. The allegations on the order are weak and barely reflect any provision under section. 3 of the New Zealand Domestic Violence Act 1995, let alone establish a condition where I should be supervised to secure my children’s safety. I do not defend against the allegations, because a lawyer should not have encouraged them to be written nor any persons have accepted them as valid.
This environment is directly established by my refusal to use the Family Court system because I can prove it will not serve the proper, fair or best interests of my son and daughter. This letter in part is proof of these facts. That it can be written is an indefensible indictment of any possible stated protection for a child in New Zealand to hold as valuable an association with their natural father. I am far better equipped to bring these allegations to yours, the Court’s and other relevant party’s attention than the Respondent could hope to be.
In the allegations the Respondent has listed below she has concentrated on the poor behaviour of all of the lawyers she has come in contact with and sites two with questions that may well lead to an investigation against corrupt practice. I have assisted the Respondent, encouraging her to compile the information.
The details submitted on communication she has had with these lawyers and the Registrar that she has retained is enclosed in this letter. Those details are removed from this letter’s publication.
My contact with counsel in these proceedings has been limited to the lawyer appointed to assist the Court. I believe the lawyer’s conduct has been unprofessional, misleading and has not adequately served the function of his Directed obligations or professional obligations. The practice and purpose of the proceedings as directed for his capacity are demonstrably inconsistent with the practice and purpose of the Family Court Rules 2002.
In this regard I ask that my allegations of this behaviour be investigated and if held, that either a replacement to the proceedings be sought by the Inspectorate better to protect the integrity of natural justice or alternative procedural action is measured to affect any outstanding injustice.
I have four complaints.
1. The lawyer as pre-emptively, has, and may so continue to reject and divert information to determine the course of justice.
2. The lawyer has failed to make submissions to the Court that have been judicially served where necessary to disengage improper practice.
3. The lawyer has, where forming a pattern, made claims in correspondence that are directly inconsistent to comments made in conversations.
4. The lawyer directly ignored my indication during the Court proceedings of November 20th to consider that: Judge Twaddle’s annexed Minute of October 3rd [The Minute] was critical to the course of justice.
At that time Judge Fraser was in chambers to consider, in regulated part, the Respondent’s application for my appointment as guardian ad litem. This was unjust and improper when:
a. The Minute redirected proceedings.
b. The Minute contained the allegations bodied to evidence including allegations against the Counsel to Assist the Court.
c. Judge Fraser was directly considering whether or not to silence my capacity further to speak to proceedings.
d. The Minute dealt with an interlocutory Order to Remove Doubt.
e. I was not at any stage capacitated with the authority to present the information to Judge Fraser, as the conversation engaged by the Court was that as directly relative to the jurisdictions of my attendance either as Mc Kenzie friend or as guardian ad litem.
f. No other party to Court proceedings, other than the lawyer had either the responsibility or the capacity to bring The Minute to the presiding Judge’s attention.
As additional to this complaint on my own behalf I include the Respondents’ submission to the Court speaking to the issue of guardian ad litem, where;
a. My authority to be involved in proceedings is relevant to a live application to be appointed guardian ad litem, where;
i. That appointment has already been accepted by the Court recognising as “my hand” submissions in the proceedings of November 20th 2007 on the respondent’s behalf.
ii. Her submissions have (it would seem naturally if to protect one’s own brethren) ignored by any lawyer approached to bring the full status of legal injustice to the full and proper attention of the public.
Given the severity of the allegations that are being presented and the immediacy of the orders of the Court, and that there is a distinct danger for the Respondent when following those Orders would see hers and her sons and daughters family home sold before all evidence before the Court is heard, I ask you treat this letter with urgency.
Thank you in advance for the respect I can anticipate you will accord to this highly complex and difficult matter.
Your’s faithfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) father’s coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 3rd December 2007 @ 1:22 pm
The Human Rights Commission is a fully paid up entity of government empowered to provide government departments up to date Human Rights Legal Advice. Basically they are the prosecution lawyers, they get in at the ground floor and are there to shape any law of government so that it complies with Human Rights. Human Rights as you guess it, the Human Rights interpretation of Human Rights. So any case before the army of paid up Human Rights Lawyers who have been dutiful experts from the get go, supporters of the goals of government. Think about it, it doesn’t sound right, a lot like it contravened the Human Rights Charter. Access to due process, a fair hearing, a government who setup a system where by you without a lawyer have to go head to head with the very prosecution lawyers that created the legal necessity in the first place. Think of it this way, a murderer kills a member of your family and the government tells you that they can’t afford to give you a lawyer and tell you to make your case to the murderers lawyers, those lawyers immediately have access not only to the murderer case file yet may discover their clients case has a big breach, their defense has a glaring hole in it (i.e. they gave bad legal advice to start with, i.e. the murderer could kill people as long as it was in self-defense and was reasonable and in the circumstance which it obviously wasn’t), so what do they do, they spend every amount of effort spinning the law (just as a prosecution would do). But due process, access to a impartial court, access to a independent legal advice, all are carefully watered down. Oh, yes you can get your own lawyer, oh yes you can go straight to court bypass the HRC but everyone will ask why didn’t you use the rubber government stamp of the HRC? Prejudicing any case you did take to the courts. Mugabe must be taking notes. A government cannot
have Human rights lawyers both as prosecution and defense advisers.
Comment by justme — Thu 13th December 2007 @ 8:41 am
Er, not any more if that was ever the case. They are now Union employees. Think of the wage gap.
Comment by julie — Thu 13th December 2007 @ 6:56 pm