Press Statement By Ike Finau 31 January 2003
PRESS STATEMENT BY IKE FINAU 31 JANUARY 2003
"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,
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’sBay Auckland
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.
THIS IS HIS ILLEGAL ACT!
Following is key background information in Ike Finau’s case:
1) Judge Joyce's ruling 18 December 2002 (NP 3350/01) states:
 "In the end, I am entirely satisfied that Mr. Finau has willfully failed, and likewise continues to fail to obey the requirements of the 1 February 2002 order and that, in all the circumstances, my only proper course is to make an order, as I do, for his committal.
 That is to issue in terms that Mr. Finau be committed to the prison at Auckland for a term of 21 days but, in order that he may have a final opportunity to purge his contempt by taking the offending signage down and desisting from any repetition, no warrant for his arrest may be issued in furtherance of that order before 17 January 2003."
2) Affidavit from David Frith, Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring, for Auckland City Environments to support Ike Finau’s committal.
“On 25 November 2002, at 1:20pm I again visited the defendant's property situated at 10 Warnock Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland ("the Property").
4. From the footpath 1 observed that two new signs have been placed in the front yard of the Property, since my visit to the Property on 26 September 2002. One sign, bearing the words "GE Free Zone” has been placed on the eastern side of the front yard, and another, larger sign, bearing the words "God save the Queen" has been placed between that sign and the defendant’s van. This van remains covered with signs, as it was on 26 September 2002. I photographed these signs. 'These photographs are annexed to this affidavit and marked with the letter "B"
None of the signs on display, referred to any lawful use of the Property. Nor are they advertising any products or services available at the Property. Accordingly, it is my understanding that the signs continue to breach Part 27 of the Auckland City Consolidated Bylaw 1998, and also the orders made by Judge Joyce QC on 1 February 2002.”
3) The Bylaw referred to is Part 27 of the Auckland City Consolidated Bylaw 1998, which sets out rules for signage and Clause 27.5.1 which states:
“Subject to (provisions about signs on or outside dairies) signage in residential zones shall be limited to a single externally facing sign for each road frontage, advertising a lawful use of the site, located on the site to which the use occurs and advertising only products or services available on the site.”
4) Judge Joyce’s original ruling of 1 February 2002 (NP3350/01) stated:
“THIS COURT ORDERS
1) There will be an injunction pursuant to section 683(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 restraining the defendant from continuing to display the signs he has placed on his property or any like signs (that is to say not permitted under the Bylaws).
2) The defendant is required to remove all such signs seven days after being served with a copy of this order.
3) Leave is reserved to the plaintiff to apply to Court for the further orders regarding enforcement if the signs are not removed within seven days.”
In justifying his decision Judge Joyce stated:
“ So I hold the Council (by virtue of s.3) and its bylaw (by virtue of s. 4) answerable to the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990. One might add that any other conclusion would create or display a rather substantial anomaly for the citizenry of Auckland City, indeed the populace of any other district in New Zealand.
 Thus, if that were possible, I am bound to give the bylaw a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights. Those rights include (s.14) that of freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. Moreover, the subject matter being but a bylaw, any unreasonable interference with those rights arising therefrom must render same to that extent unreasonable and thus invalid.
 Mr Finau’s counsel, for whom Clause 27.5.1 seemed to conjure up something all too close to an absolute prohibition, placed great weight on the Canadian case City of Toronto v Quickfall (1994) 111 DLR (4th edition). In that case the Ontario Court of Appeal held that bylaws absolutely prohibiting postering on public property infringed the freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights.
 Self evidently the bylaw here is different. It does not seek to impose a blanket embargo against signage in terms distinguishing public from private property or vice versa. Instead, whatever the nature of the ownership or occupancy of any site in residential zones, it addresses the number and content of signage.
 This is done, as already explained, in the context of a range of provisions that include exemptions and provision for the licensing of signs that, literally speaking might offend the bylaw itself. And this in the context of an expressed consciousness of the high amenity values desirably to be found in residential areas. Also, and just as important, with reported regard to matters of public safety.
 Against that background, I now examine whether – and if so to what extent- Clause 27.5.1 (considered in overall Part 27 context) really restricts the freedom of expression of a residential property owner or occupier like Mr Finau and whether (if it truly does) whether, in all reasonableness, any restriction is demonstrably justified.
 First of all, it does not seem to me that I need formal evidence to recognise that there would be, and are, numbers of other ways whereby one such as Mr Finau could, and can, enjoy the freedom to express or impart his opinions.
“ Mr Finau, like any other citizen, has the avenues of word of mouth, letter writing, attendance at Council or Council committee meetings, calling or speaking at public meetings, distribution of pamphlets or papers, web page publications and encouragement of media intervention. And this is only to mention some of the more obvious possibilities.” _______________________________________________________ _
Ike Finau is not allowed to have ANY signs on his private property, or on his vehicle, that expresses his opinion, on any matter, or else he will go to jail.
How can a total prohibition on a particular form of freedom of expression (IE: signage on private property) be a “Justifiable limitation” in our so-called ‘democratic’ New Zealand?
“Article 19 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” “New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 14. Freedom of expression
---Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
Which part of “all forms” or “through any media” does Mr Joyce fail to understand?
We believe that Mr Joyce as a Queen’s Counsel has soiled the silk in the insulting demand he is making for the removal of such signs of endearment to our Queen in her fiftieth year of reign.
To date, John Banks, Mayor of Auckland is unwilling to confirm that it is illegal under the Bylaw 27.5 to have signs that say “Merry Xmas” or “Loyal” (in support of Team New Zealand). The Auckland City Council has refused to date, to define the ruling with regard to these signs.
They are still seeking Ike’s imprisonment, even though they have been asked to delay the seeking of a warrant for Mr Finau’s arrest until the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson proves it that:
a) The Auckland City Council Consolidated Bylaw 1998, particularly Part 27 does not in any way violate the BORA 1990. b) The Auckland City Council Consolidated Bylaw 1998, particularly Part 27, does not in any way violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. The United Nations Human Rights Committee is satisfied that the BORA 1990 has fully incorporated all the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has been given over riding status in our legal system. That the governor-general has signed Auckland City Council Consolidated Bylaw 1998 into law as the Queen’s representative. The Auckland City Council Consolidated Bylaw 1998, particularly Part 27 would be legal under `The Local Government Act 2002 which now requires Council Bylaws to be consistent with the BORA 1990.
You may regard the Finau and Rupa’s as mere citizens without title, however under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which New Zealand ratified conditionally in 1968, we are entitled to our human rights which have still to be fully incorporated into domestic NZ law and given over riding status so they have real teeth, and we have real protection against violations.
When Prime Minister Helen Clark your appointment as Governor- General, on 24 August 2000, she stated:
“Dame Silvia Cartwright has made an impressive contribution to New Zealand at home and abroad as a lawyer and a jurist, and as an advocate for women and women’s rights….
Since 1993 she has been a member of the United Nations committee monitoring compliance with the United Nations Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). New Zealand is extremely fortunate to have a person of Dame Silvia’s calibre and background who is willing to assume the position of Governor General.”
Whose responsibility is it to make sure that you, as Governor General, get copies of reports from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, so that you are kept fully briefed with their concerns about New Zealand’s human rights and where improvements need to be made?
You have no reason whatsoever to not pass on to the Queen the concerns of New Zealanders about human rights violations in this country, other than to protect the ‘legal system’, and yourself, for your failure to ensure the Queen’s New Zealand subjects have these rights, in the absence of a written constitution.
The effect of the behaviour of all Ministers who have been aware of these letters and the United Nations’ Human rights Committee’s criticism, and yourself has been, in our opinion, to hide the truth from our Queen and the citizens you have sworn to serve.
Your lack of action stands to disgrace the Queen’s reputation internationally by suggesting that she support the denial of human rights to her New Zealand subjects, because of the violation of human rights that you refuse to accept and admit to.
As the Queen’s representative, you have not taken action on these matters.
Please produce the authority, which allows you to contradict the Queen’s stand of protecting the rights of her subjects and potentially disgracing her in the eyes of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Do you not consider that your failure not to advise the Queen of these human rights violations constitutes a dereliction of your duty?
Nothing short of the loss of your office and all entitlements seems fair to us, for your willingness to effectively deceive the Queen and all New Zealanders, while allowing the freedom of a New Zealander to be denied, and his human rights violated all because he wished to exercise his human right of freedom of expression.
While you are still the Queen’s representative, you are requested to:
1)Intervene as Governor General by applying the ‘Royal Prerogative’ that you have for ‘mercy’, in order to defend the liberty of Ike Finau, and prevent any further violation of his human rights.
2) Immediately inform the Queen of the urgent need for the New Zealand Parliament to fully incorporate the rights guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into New Zealand law and to give this human rights legislation over riding status in our legal system. 3) Justify your failure to act on the Rupa’s letters. 4)Given the faith that you have that the New Zealand Parliament has not in any way violated human rights, please give your public reasons why the first act to be considered by the New Zealand Parliament should not be the full incorporation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its over riding status in New Zealand law in accordance with the recommendation of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and why it should not apply retrospectively over all New Zealand law.
The Rupa family
Contact Dilip Rupa (09) 360 1140