"Ike and the family are back home - his signs are still up and he's still a free man!"
Join Ike Finau in a celebration of 'freedom of expression' at the Viaduct Basin tomorrow, Monday 27 January 2003 from 11.00am to 3.00pm.
The Water Pressure Group calls on all citizens to celebrate the democracy and human rights to which all citizens of the world are supposed to be entitled to and guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
Hundreds of copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, will be available in leaflet form, thanks to the Human Rights Commission, so people can learn their human rights!
(The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, is a weak and stunted crippled dwarf, compared to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. Nearly half of the Articles from the UDHR are missing from the BORA. Sections from the BORA, are weaker in comparision to the original Articles in the UDHR on which they were based, and Section 4 of the BORA effectively puts the BORA right at the bottom of the NZ legal food chain, because it allows it to be 'trumped' be every other enactment.
The Ike Finau signs case has exposed just how gutless our New Zealand human rights legislation really is.
"GE Free Zone" "God Save the Queen" "Defend Democracy - in solidarity with Ike Finau.."
"LOYAL" with a black 'silver fern' which support Team New Zealand in the America's Cup.
Dilip Rupa has an identical "LOYAL" sign supporting Team New Zealand on his property.
Dilip Rupa has sent the Auckland City Council two letters and five faxes c/- the Mayor John Banks, complaining about his own sign, in order to seek clarity as to whether it was illegal to display a "LOYAL" Team New Zealand sign, and in so doing, to expose the absurdity of the Bylaw and the subsequent Court rulings which enforced the Bylaw.
The America's Cup final draws closer. Dilip Rupa has still not received an answer.
Can Auckland citizens put signs on their private property supporting Team New Zealand or not?
Ike Finau is not allowed. Dillip Rupa doesn't know if he is allowed to or not, but is displaying one anyway - the Council know he is, but are refusing to act, while Ike Finau faces 21 days for the same 'offence'.
How can the Auckland City Council make 'fish of one and fowl of the other'?
The Water Pressure Group does not have policy on the America's Cup, but it does on freedom of expression.
Those who do not support the America'$ Cup, can buy one and modify it, by spray painting a big red $ sign, or X through it, to express an opposing viewpoint AS IS THEIR RIGHT.
The Water Pressure Group calls on all those who both support and oppose the Amercia's Cup to join together in to celebrate our right to express our opinions, even if they are completely opposite, and our right to express our opinions in the form of signs that we can display on our properties or vehicles.
Any people or groups who wish to draw the links between New Zealand armed forces sailing off on the frigate to the Middle East on Tuesday, to support the 'War against Terrorism' while democracy is under attack here in Auckland City, are very welcome also.
As hundreds more signs go up on properties all over Auckland City as citizens exercise the right to freedom of expression which is supposed to be guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what is the Auckland City Council going to do?
really going to force residents, to the point of arrest and imprisonment, to take down signs supporting the Team New Zealand?
Of course, once the Auckland City Council say that "LOYAL" signs with a silver fern supporting Team New Zealand are OK, then they will have to change the Bylaw 27.5.1, because at the moment they are not.
In our opinion, Ike Finau's human rights have been violated, plain and simple. Ike Finau was told that he 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.
Which part of "all forms" or "through any media" did Judge Joyce fail to understand?
Well before Ike Finau was threatened with jail, this violation was exposed to the Governor General in a letter from the Rupa family on September 19 2001, when she was asked if she 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 Ministers including Helen Clark had been fully informed of this correspondence.
"8 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. 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.
"176The 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 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? "
"a) 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.
b) 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."
The Rupa family have received no reply to date from the Governor-General.
"3. Mr Coughey (New Zealand) said that his delegation's replies had been grouped into broad subject areas, rather than by sequence, or order of articles, in order to facilaitate discussion later. The first area concerned the reasons why human rights law had not been accorded higher status than ordinary legislation.
4. Ms Butler (New Zealand) said that the granting of supreme status to the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) would require a special majority in Parliament or a referendum. At the constitutional conference convened by the Government in 2000, which had brought together academics, the judiciary, members of Parliament and the Maori community, it had been evident that the objections to incorporating a bill of rights as supreme law had not changed since the Select Committee on the subject had convened in 1987.	However, in practice, the BORA was often used to limit, and sometimes augment, statutes, regulations and government practices. The Courts were required by law to interpret a statute in accordance with the provisions of the BORA wherever possible. The courts now wielded considerable power in matters protecting rights and freedoms. The Human Rights Act 2001 guaranteed implementation of the new judicial remedies which had been introduced to give effect to the rights guaranteed. Under the same Act, complaints relating to discrimination could be addressed to the Human Rights Commission in relation to all government activities, through a publicly-funded process.
5. Under section 7 of the BORA, the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Law Office assessed Bills at the vetting stage with a view to prevent the adoption of legislation that contradicted the BORA.
6...Lawyers in New Zealand were becoming less insular, in the sense that foreign law and decisions by foreign courts were frequently brought to the court's attention. In addition to the relevant international treaties and Covenants, the courts themselves had also referred to rulings made by the courts of other countries. However, no mechanism currently existed to alert the government to the fact that a court had been unable to incorporate such international instruments into its decision- making owing to the narrowness of the relevant New Zealand legislation. Instead, the government looked to the relevant department or the Human Rights Commission to draw its attention to such cases. Finally, in New Zealand the remedies available to individuals in the event of violations of their rights under the Covenant also provided for the amendment or repeal of the offending legislation."
That is what the New Zealand representatives told the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
The Ike Finau signs test case is a graphic illustration of just how weak our human rights are in NZ. The answer is simple: Fully incorporate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into the Bill of Rights Act and give it overriding legal status.
"GE Free Zone" "God Save the Queen" "Defend Democracy - in solidarity with Ike Finau.." "LOYAL" - supporting Team New Zealand.
Unfortunately, it seems that 'common sense just ain't that common.' Not in the rarified, oxygen-deprived atmosphere at 30,000 feet at which the decision-makers operate! Of course, if ordinary people all over the world, had meaningful human rights legislation, it would be a lot harder for the 'will of big business to represent the authority of government', which is what appears to be the case both in New Zealand and internationally.
So! Come down to the Viaduct Basin, pick up a leaflet - STUDY AND LEARN YOUR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS! Buy a sign to put on your property! Join us and be part of this 'People Power' milestone that is going to help make human rights history in New Zealand! Like Ike Finau - be a 'street fighter' for human rights!
"The City is looking at all enforcement options to determine its next steps in the case involving the illegal signs at 10 Warnock Street, Grey Lynn.
While the property owner, Ekenasio Finau, has been found in contempt of court for failing to follow an order to remove the signs, and thus faces the threat of jail, the City is exploring other options available. Further advice on all options, together with further legal advice, is being gathered and will be reviewed during the next few days.
The City wants the signs taken down. Recent inspections have revealed that Mr Finau has removed some signs from the property. This is encouraging.
Taking away someone's liberty is not something entered into lightly - and in the interim the City is keeping all of its enforcement options open, rather than uplifting the committal order already provided by the Court.
Paul Sonderer Director Customer Services Auckland City Council"
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"
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. Thatthe 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 BORA1990.
Interveneas 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.
Immediatelyinform 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. Justifyyour 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.