Someone from one of the major parties involved in the upcoming Tauranga by-election called me yesterday.
There are twelve candidates in all. Three minor parties opposed to vaccine mandates say they are hoping for an upset result, but unfortunately they have not united around a single candidate. Having listened to some political hopefuls, I reflect here what this is all about.
The history of parliaments goes back to the Magna Carta which was pretty much forced on King John by his disgruntled barons. In essence, King John felt he had a divine right to rule—he could regulate, punish, and tax the population pretty much as he saw fit, and he did so with abandon. Modern parliaments have quietly slipped into King John’s way of thinking.
The Magna Carta affirmed that the King had to take account of the wishes of the people, it acknowledged that citizens had a right to worship and conduct their business freely, and crucially said that the King was not above the law:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
So what is the law of the land referred to here? Law has three components:
- Parliamentary law
- Common law
- Natural law
All of which play a role in modern jurisprudence.
Parliamentary laws are those on the statute books. New laws are passed by each elected parliament according to the wishes of a majority of MPs.
Common Law comprises a number of rights stemming from the Magna Carta and subsequent judicial rulings and conventions on human rights. In essence Common Law is intended to ensure the dealings between individuals and between people and the state are fair and just. It also underpins our right to engage in our chosen profession or trade. It guarantees freedoms such as the right to worship and freedom of movement.
Natural Law combines all the laws of nature described by physics, chemistry, biology etc. Natural law is often described by religious people as God’s Will.
My advice to anyone aspiring to be elected to represent Tauranga is that we already have laws which need to be scrupulously observed. The problem is that our parliament, just like King John, has begun to consider that it is above the law.
NZ has its Bill of Rights, but its provisions of free medical choice have been ignored.
NZ describes itself as a Common Law democracy but the government has denied employment opportunities and other freedoms to a large section of the population through coercive mandates and restrictions.
Natural Law has also been ignored. Evolutionary safeguards embodied in our DNA have been altered through experimental mRNA techniques without regard to the risks involved or the science.
The result has been that almost the whole population has been subjected to medical risk and injury.
I suggest that anyone concerned should print out a copy of the main provisions of the NZ Bill of Rights and display them prominently at their home and their place of business.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Guarantees:
- Right not to be deprived of life or subjected to cruel treatment
- Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
- Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment
- Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief
- Freedom of peaceful assembly, association, and movement
- Right to justice, liberty, and freedom from discrimination
If you talk to Tauranga candidates, remind them that our current laws, both ancient and modern, need to be observed, no ifs or buts.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID). Website: HatchardReport.com.
Guy is the author of ‘Your DNA Diet: Leveraging the Power of Consciousness To Heal Ourselves and Our World. An Ayurvedic Blueprint For Health and Wellness’.
What law? It is a matter of convenience when it comes to NWO agenda. Jabbing, pandenic treaty, 5=eyes, Ukranian neonazi support etc occurred with little regard to the fundamental rights of citizens.
1. The “rights” offered to “the free man” are unused since the passing of the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 that converted all “free men” into corporation soles.
2.In all court actions to date where the court was asked to overturn “government” Covid-19 pandemic responses because they limit or remove human rights the Court has found for the “government” on the basis that the limitation or removal was justified in accordance with The NZ BoR act 1990 Sec 5: Justified limitations:
Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Definitions
Reasonable”: Conformable or agreeable to reason; just; rational. Bouviers Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
“Demonstrate”: Proof which excludes all possibility of error. Bouviers Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
“Justified”: The act by which a party accused shows and maintains a good and legal reason in court, why he did the thing he is called upon to answer. Bouviers Revised Sixth Edition, 1856. The issue is that the court has not been asked to demonstrate the justification. To date the court proceeded on the basis that “a positive case in the community is a person that supplied a sample that resulted in a positive RT-PCR test. Because of the many short comings of the RT-PCR test that is not demonstrated justification. Demonstrated justification = a person that becomes symptomatic as a consequence of an immune system response that was caused by an infection of a virus that was isolated from a sample taken from that person and the isolate was identified as SARS-Cov-2 by comparison with the SARS-CoV-2 virus isolated from patient zero. This isolate would need to be introduced into an asymptomatic person who then became symptomatic and isolates from this second person were also identified as SARs-CoV-2.
From Little Dorrit: The Circumlocution Office was (as everybody knows without being told) the most important Department under Government. No public business of any kind could possibly be done at any time without the acquiescence of the Circumlocution Office. Its finger was in the largest public pie, and in the smallest public tart. It was equally impossible to do the plainest right and to undo the plainest wrong without the express authority of the Circumlocution Office.
I copied the Bill of Rights Guarantees to my local (National)MP. This was the automated response:
“Thank you for contacting the office of Chris Penk, MP for Kaipara ki Mahurangi, National Party Senior Whip, Shadow Attorney-General, Associate Justice and Courts spokesperson.
As Chris receives large amounts of correspondence, it is not always possible to personally reply to all emails. However, please be assured that all correspondence is read and noted by the Office of Chris Penk MP.
If you are writing to express a personal view or to copy Chris in on an issue, you may not receive a further response beyond this message. Therefore, please consider this email as acknowledgement of receipt of your correspondence.
Chris values all correspondence but, if your email falls outside of his MP or spokesperson responsibilities, it may be transferred to another appropriate spokesperson for response.
If a response is required, this will be done in due course. ”
He used to respond to my emails – but this is the best we can expect going forward. They all treat us as “rivers of filth” and plebs
I’m concerned for the Maoris that kind in Tauranga with what the Maori party had said in the past. They didn’t want to run a candidate because of racial attacks and some death threats. If they are worried that an MP would receive this treatment then what about the men women and children they represent?? By not standing they are telling those people they have no interest in representing them. I’m unsure if they have changed this stance, but history doesn’t forget