We live iin an interesting little country, where people are quite sensitive to personal freedoms. Our social-system  was never as advanced as the current central-european's, and what we have is now under serious attack by the freeloaders of our society, big business.The post WW2 years, what normally would have been the time for continueing progress, has recently been turned into the "great cut-back" of solidarity, fully in tune and often advanced experimental with the well organised and funded neo-liberal ideology. So our first female prime Minister, who came to power without an election, was given a chance if she gave "stability", or, in other words, more power to the economic elites. The following commentary in the Sunday Star-Times of 20December1998 page C4, makes a very fundamental point, and gives an insight into the thinking of our present goverment.

Moral hypocrisy rules, OK?
Human rights not taken seriously

THINKING ALOUD, by Sandra Coney

The other day National Radio played an old recording made on the first anniversary of the passing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And there was Sid Holland, crackling down the wire, boasting of New Zealand's human rights record: first to give women the vote, first with the old age pension, proud inaugurators of the most complete social security programme in the world. Iwonder what Sid would think of where we are now. Fifty years on, human rights in New Zealand are in a sad state. Last week the Privacy Commissioner asked for more funding to enable him to reduce the present 12-month delay in conducting investigations.
The Race Relations Conciliator is having to develop guidelines for his staff on how to prioritise cases, saying that because of a lack of funding, cases would have to be more serious than previously before they can be investigated. Effectively, the threshold for racism is being
raised. Rajen Prasad's annual budget is $1.3 million to service 1210 inquiries and 449 complaints. Not quite double the amount Prime Minister Shipley spends on her expensive media
message massagers.
Short-changing rights agencies is a way of controlling their activ ities. It is also a statement about the Government's priorities and commitment to human rights.
Its other methods for downplay ing human rights are less subtle. The Government has pulled the plug on the Human Rights Com mission's Consistency 2000 project which was aimed at ensur ing all government legislation was consistent with the Human Rights Act by the year 2000.
This means the private sector and members of the public in our daily lives must adhere to human rights standards the Government has exempted it self from. Moral hypocrisy rules, OK?
The Government's decision means for the first time since 1977 there will be no provision in New Zealand law requiring legis lation to be reviewed for its com pliance with international human rights obligations. The effect of the abrogation is that internally, New Zealand signals to the private sector that human rights don't matter, while externally, we in form the international community we do not take our international human rights commitments seriously. We should have got the mes sage human rights were not at the forefront of the Government pro gramme from Shipley's denouncement of American statements about human rights in Malaysia as "megaphone diplomacy". Shipley maintained the Americans lacked sensitivity to cultural difference. Apparently kangaroo courts and repression of public protest are Asian peculiarities Westerners don't understand. On those scores, Shipley should have felt right at home.
Last week the Government rushed to remedy the gap exposed by the Court of Appeal's ruling that an interception warrant does not allow the Secret Intelligence Service to break into and burgle citizens' private homes. The court case followed a raid on the home of free trade critic Aziz Choudry in 1996 during an Apec trade ministers' meeting.
The Government thought it could with impunity rummage around in peoples' houses, plant bugging devices, intercept their mail, and remove papers, simply because they were deemed to be a threat to New Zealand's "econom ic wellbeing".
Authorisation for these incursions into people's liberties is not granted by the independent judiciary, but by the prime minister. As prime ministers are not impartial, but have party-political ideologies, this raises the spectre of such raids being politically motivated, as in Choudry's
case it appears has already occurred.
It is particularly indefensible to treat critics of the free market as saboteurs when pursuit of the Lorelei of free trade has led to global economic collapse. It may be the Government itself poses more threat to New Zealand's economic wellbeing than any amount of pamphlet producing or placard waving in the street.
As far as is known, the raid on Choudry is the one and only of its kind, so why the need to steamroll through patch-up legislation? As Apec nears, are more raids planned on those of dissenting views?
I probably share many of Choudry's attitudes to the free market. Does this mean I can expect the jackboots to march up my suburban doorstep, or is there al ready a device planted in my phone?
Instead of rushing through an amendment to legitimise the inde fensible, the Government should be taking the time to reflect and consult. There is hardly an emergency, unless we count the need to posture for the big boys coming to Apec.


back