by frog
Last Friday Justice Minister Simon Power announced nine new appointments to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
Among them was former National Party MP Brian Neeson. A typical political appointment?
Well, no! Neeson was dumped from the Helensville electorate by the National Party in 2002 in favour of the current Prime Minister John Key. What’s more, Neeson had the temerity to stand as an independent against Key, in a move that could have split the centre-right vote and cost National the electorate. The National Party owes him nothing.
So does he have some expertise in human rights to justify his appointment? Well, no again! Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has done some Hansard research, and discovered Neeson’s track record on human rights when he was an MP includes:
- Voting in favour of allowing employers to discriminate on the basis of gender.
- Voting to exclude sexual orientation from being a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Act.
- Voting to exclude AIDS and HIV from the definition of “physical health” in the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act.
- Voting to allow health professionals and teachers to be sacked for being gay and to allow the armed forces and the police to continue to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
- Voting against the Property Relationships Act being extended to cover de-facto couples.
So Neeson has spent most of his political life espousing bigotry and opposing human rights.
I’ve been hopping around Parliament for a while now, and it takes a lot to surprise me. But this one has me puzzled – it is a truly bizarre appointment.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by frog on Mon, December 21st, 2009
Tags: bigotry, Brian Neeson, human rights, Simon Power
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Like or Dislike:
11 
5 (+6)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
7 
18 (-11)
The issue here is credentials to carry out the role. Neeson has no legal background to qualify him for the role, and has at every opportunity as a legislator opposed the legislation he is now as a member of the Human Rights Review Tribunal going to be charged with upholding.
As Idiot/Savant said in the link frog provided, his appointment is like appointing Taito Philip Field to an anti-corruption taskforce.
I’m not sure what came over Simon Power in making this appointment – he has consistently been one of the better performing Cabinet Ministers, but this just doesn’t seem to make any sense.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
I well recall Neeson from his time in Parliament. He doesn’t support significant chunks of the legislation he would have to administer (unless his views have changed markedly in the intervening period). Dog whistle to the religious right?
Like or Dislike:
9 
4 (+5)
Kevin,
There are different interpretations of rights, you know this. There is the notion of natural rights and there is the notion of legal rights. As we have previously discussed, the notion of natural rights is totally invalid and a legal right is only a right if it is enforced.
These people are, as you say, responsible for enforcing the act, the legislation. It is not the act that makes a legal right a right but rather the enforcement and since it is these people whom decide if a right is enforced then it is not if something is actually a right that informs their decision but rather their perception of what should be a right. It is they whom make the declaration a right.
If all members on the board perceive rights to be natural or to be exactly as the legislation states then there is no buffer if those rights would ultimately harm the higher granted rights of another. Which they do. It is desirable to have some buffer to prevent such harm.
~
Toad,
Actually it is a matter of balance as their opinions are taken to represent those of the people from which they gain the force that allows them to enforce the ‘rights’. It is as such important to gain a representative sample, or are you now against representation?
Climate change is a matter of science, not consensus. This is a matter of consensus, not science. For you to try and equate the two is either deliberate dishonesty or massive naivety.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
There is a difference between representation to make laws and representation in the enforcing of laws.
Be more honest sapient, you don’t support human rights laws so someone who does not support human rights being appointed to this position is OK with you – rather than use specious arguments.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
SPC,
Specious? Mine are both seemingly rational and actually rational.
A court judge is appointed to interpret and enact the law. It is accepted that the judge is influenced by their personal experience and bigotry.
I do support the legalistic notion of human rights. I consider it a necessary evil as it protects society. What I am opposed to is the human rights that directly violate other supposed human rights as the existence of such is of clear detriment to society.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
By International Western Standards – New Zealands Human Rights are Third World in nature – whether by discrimination, expedience, the overweening id – or a number of societal Factors.
I’ve given up trying to understand NZ. Though I’ve been home ten years – it’s still like the whole place has fallen in a hole.
A Judge is Another Public Servant and must do their best by everyone in the Community to fulfill that Role – however, the Legal system here is so fraught with violations of Human Rights, it must be incredibly difficult to maintain true objectivity, much less get at the Truth.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Later Sapient – but for now, climate change is a consensus of scientists.
The political consensus is the human rights law.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
PS; The Health System has it’s own Human Rights Commissioner and they are snowed with work – the Budget truly needs doubling there!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
SPC,
No, there is a consensus among climate scientists but it is not a matter of consensus. There is a difference. As Einstein said, many signed said his work was wrong but if he realy was wrong it would take but one. It doesint matter how many people believe climate change exists or does not exist, it will not change the nature of reality as it is objective. Since rights are something formed by humans as a result of agreements between humans those rights are a matter of consensus.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
Perhaps you could refer to some of the specific “nut balls” you object to, or some decisions of the Human Rights Commission that illustrate your point?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
This might be just the appointment to facilitate this guys awakening from ignorance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Nutballs?
Frog, Toad, SPC, Delehunty, Bradford, etc.
But if you want someone from the commission then why not the chief:
I don’t know her personally and have had no dealing with her but her history given on the site indicates a clear dedication to forcing her principles on others with little care for the effects on society.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
I’ve had a lot to do with the Commission over the years. There have occasionally been Commissioners I thought were a bit lightweight, but by and large, under both National-led and Labour-led governments, the calibre has been high and decision-making very sound. Brian Neeson seems an extraordinary appointment.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
I started this hoping for a near unwinnable debate that would challenge me to the extreme but now I just cant be bothered; its distracting me from trying to learn Java.
Kevin continues to impress me though.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Opps, didn’t see that post before I responded.
She has worked in various trade union positions. Being a heading member of a trade union indicates that one is motivated by ideology and doesn’t really care anything about society at all. Being a member of several human rights organisations indicates one seeks to push their own views on others, often without caring about how those may damage society.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Sapient – you have basically stated that Ms Noonan has various negative qualities based on (highly debatable) pre-conceived ideas about the organisations she has worked with. You give no examples of any of her actions that actually show these qualities. Give us an example of something she has done that is not ‘caring about society at all’ or when she has ‘pushed her views onto others without caring about the damage done to society’. You will note that specific examples of Mr Neeson’s actions were provided, which many will agree are an affront to human rights.
In my opinion you are merely skirting around the issue. You don’t want to mention particular examples because that will expose your real views, which I’m gathering are not at all pretty.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
You have an unusual view of the world. I am a union member, and if anything, I would characterise most union leaders as being pragmatic rather than motivated by ideology (I personally wish that union leadership were more concerned with ideology and were less pragmatic, but that is just my personal view).
Your second point about membership of human rights organisations is truly bizarre. If one is concerned about human rights, don’t you think it is natural to join organisations of like minded people? Or does the true supporter of human rights stay at home and do and say nothing?
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
Wtl & Samiuela,
I was trying to dig myself a hole here. This one, unlike my normal holes, does not come with a pre-crafted staircase nor does it necessarily represent my views. When I have a bad day I just have a tendency to take up the most absurd argument I can find, normally I win, here I very much doubt I will be able to.
I admit that the posistion I have taken regarding the human rights commission is untenable. My taking that posistion is not a result of my opposisition to the commission – something I think is needed – but the absence of anything more entertaining to debate on this blog (the atheist/agnostic debate follows the same rational).
*This is me stating that I do not have a leg to stand on* (Though, I can see ways to win this but I cant really be bothered as it would be the equivalent to a large essay and it is not really winning that counts [certainly there would be nothing gained in this instance])
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“When I have a bad day I just have a tendency to take up the most absurd argument I can find, normally I win, here I very much doubt I will be able to.”
Ha!! blogs can be therapeutic can they not Sapient!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
12 (-11)
Sapient; I agree with a lot that you say on this subject – but we’ve had a discussion about ‘uman Rights in NZ…..suffice to say that most people, never having had their rights tested, go around in a cloud of beleif that they are sheilded and protected by those ‘Rights’.
Those who have put that notion to the test have no such illusions.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Owen, The link is not working
The good doctor is even worse than Al Gore. At least Gore was working for himself, this guy works for the UN.
And the UN wants to control the worlds ETS with power to enforce, if required, compliance. Yeah right.
No wonder Copenhagen was doomed from the start, to many troughers making a buck out of ETS.
[Frog: Gerrit - this is not a climate change thread. And yes, I know Owen started the threadjack. Please don't - there are plenty of threads to discuss climate change, Copenhagen and related issues on.]
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
I see the story has now hit the MSM, with the NZ Herald running it today.
Well done No Right Turn for picking up on it first. And good to see the MSM giving a blogger credit for breaking a story for once.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
My apologies. I did not mean to threadjack. I had just read the story about Pachauri when I read the opening posts on this thread and read it as a thread about conflicts of interest. Hence my opening sentence.
I honestly did not see this story as about Global warming or climate science but about an appointment which seems to have ignored an obvious conflict of interest – and about the remarkable failure of the MSM to do any investigation until now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
How strange. Two readers don’t like apologies!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)