A letter to the United Nations Association of NZ: Your September National Conference agenda breaches your UNANZ constitution

On Monday 7 August 2023 I wrote to the United Nations Association of New Zealand (UNANZ) with some concerns about their agenda and keynote speaker at their upcoming National Conference 28 September 2023, given the apparent inconsistencies between the UNANZ constitution and some of the policies pursued by Sir Ashley Bloomfield as Director General of Health for the Labour Government and the matter of countering disinformation. 

My reasons for writing UNANZ is because they and their constitution are about upholding the UN Charter, Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the various covenants agreed and made international law through UN General Assemblies then ratified by the various UN members including New Zealand. 

Any individual paying attention would comprehend that the NZ Government has breached international law with their COVID-19 Response; lockdowns, restrictions of movement, mandates, including forcing mass vaccination of the population with experimental toxic mutagenic mRNA products, through the employment of economic blackmail, such as loss of employment (huge breach of human rights). 

The following is the text of the email I sent the UNANZ President and National Council. 

To date I have had no acknowledgement or response. 

-----

Dear UNANZ President and National Council,

I note the United Nations Association of New Zealand National Conference in September has a few matters on its agenda:

https://www.unanz.org.nz/learn/news-and-events/advancing-the-2030-agenda-national-conference/ 

Highlights include a keynote address by Dr Sir Ashley Bloomfield KNZM. Sir Ashley Bloomfield trained in medicine at the University of Auckland and specialised in public health medicine. He has 25 years’ experience in public policy and health leadership, including at the World Health Organization in Geneva. Sir Ashley was New Zealand’s Director-General of Health from June 2018 to July 2022 and led the country’s health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Panel discussion speakers include Member of Parliament Ibrahim Omer, Ambassador Carolyn Schwalger, New Zealand's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, Mary Wareham, Advocacy Director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch, and Sophie Handford, Paekākāriki–Raumati Ward Councillor at the Kāpiti Coast District Council.

Panel discussions will cover a range of topics, including The Climate Challenge, Reforming the United Nations and Countering disinformation and rebuilding trust in institutions.

With respect to this statement; Countering disinformation and rebuilding trust in institutions, and Sir Ashley Bloomfield's COVID-19 address we have the ground of a serious controversy. 

Before I go into the specifics of my critique, it also is necessary to point to the UNANZ Constitution's objectives which state in Article 2;

2. OBJECTIVES 

2.1 The principal objective for which the Association is established within New Zealand is to be a peoples' movement for the United Nations, through which the principles of the UN Charter can be shared widely and its vision realised. 

To advance this Objective the Association proposes to engage in such charitable activities as: 

(a) To co-ordinate, initiate and support activities which relate to aims and purposes of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals. 

(b) To promote research, information, education and general public knowledge about the treaties, conventions and resolutions agreed in the UN General Assembly by the governments of the world and furthermore provide the Government of New Zealand with information as to the evaluation of UN policies and actions by the New Zealand public. To promote how the UN system works and to provide general knowledge of the history behind the UN to the New Zealand public. To promote the role or the contribution that the UN makes towards peace and prosperity.  

Some folk require reminding about the International Bill of Human Rights which is a restatement of a nation's ratification of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948, and  the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, all of which NZ has ratified ICESCR and ICCPR in 1978.

NZ has ratified Article 4 and 7 of the ICCPR:

Article 4

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Additionally the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists, April 1985 are engaged. The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the ICCPR make clear the non-derogation of certain articles even in times of public emergency. The test of proportionality is set at a high level.

There are more covenants and treaties from international law that apply. 

NZ's Bill of Rights 1990 (BORA) is an attempt to legislate the rights and freedoms articulated in the ICCPR. 

NZ's COVID-19 Response measures and COVID-19 vaccination with experimental gene therapy products; offered, proselytised, coerced and mandated upon the NZ population, abrogated all of the principles and law that UNANZ states as their objectives in their constitution. 

However, any who point out the FACT that the official narrative about COVID-19 is unhinged and unlawful, is labelled as one who promotes extreme white supremacist misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. That being the case I am so labelled. However, I know that I am correct in my interpretation and that the accusers including from the disinformation project are the unhinged disinformation proponents as they are regurgitating the NZ Government's talking points on the COVID-19 phenomena. 

I initiated a petition to the House: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/petitions/document/PET_117877/petition-of-greg-rzesniowiecki-amend-section-5-and-add Extracts from my evidence paper February 2022 follow:

 

Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Amend Section 5 and add a new section 5A to the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 

Introduction and summary
● The petitioner addresses New Zealand and international law as it relates to NZ's Bill of Rights Act 1990 and any justification for derogation from the rights provided in sections 8,9 10 and 11 under the heading; “Life and security of the person.”
● Law is both written and unwritten. Written law provides sufficient explanation to assert that there is no justification to derogate from the right to life and security of the person in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
● The paper gives some consideration to recent High Court and the Court of Appeal judgements with respect to COVID-19 matters and the respective Judges' interpretation of the law.
● The Court of Appeal decision in the Andrew Borrowdale vs the Director General of Health case clearly upholds the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) article 4 non-derogation against certain rights; “Certain rights may not be derogated. The rights in the ICCPR that are treated as being sacrosanct include the rights to life, religion, and freedom from torture and slavery...
For completeness, we record the rights contained in the NZBORA include the right in s 8 not to be deprived of life.”
● The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR) articles 1-6 uphold certain rights including article 6 the right to free and full consent in the following contexts;

• “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information” and;

• “Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned” and;

• “In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent”.

● The petitioner addresses the question; “Is the COVID-19 Vaccine rollout an experiment?” FACTS support the conclusion that it is experimental.
● The petitioner addresses the question; “Is the COVID-19 Vaccine rollout promoting a “safe and effective” treatment? FACTS support the conclusion that it is NOT SAFE nor is it effective at preventing infection or transmission.
● The petitioner finds it disturbing, the FACT of the serious risks of the COVID-19 Vaccines, whilst known to the NZ Government, were not provided to the citizens.
● The petitioner is also dismayed, that the Government's duty to care, for COVID-19 patients was compromised, through a refusal to facilitate early treatment, with cheap generic, and off-label drugs (including anti-viral and anti-inflammatory medicines), with known safety profiles, which have been used to great effect in other jurisdictions.
● The Petitioner finds that the NZ Government COVID-19 Vaccine rollout and the Orders and Legislation forcing people to be “Vaccinated” engages each of BORA sections 8,9,10 and 11. This is contrary to the spirit of BORA and the Law
articulated in the non-derogation articles in ICCPR and UDBHR.
● The petitioner finds that the NZ Government COVID-19 Vaccine rollout as constituted is unlawful. Were the existing LAW applied properly, this proposed amendment to section 5 BORA would be redundant.

And; the official Covid narrative involves belief in the following which a critical mind might view as disinformation or false (found on page 70)

;

1. COVID-19 is caused by a novel pathogenic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.
2. COVID-19 pathogen is a zoonotic emergence (natural, rather than biolab creation of a synthetic chimera).
3. COVID-19 is both highly infectious and deadly.
4. COVID-19 positive diagnosis is measured by PCR test.
5. COVID-19 in early 2020 had no known cure amongst available medicines and therapeutics in the global medicine cabinet.
6. COVID-19 illness would overrun hospital ICU capacity causing a breakdown of the Health system.
7. COVID-19 is best kept out of NZ for as long as possible no matter the cost to other policy considerations; public health and mental wellbeing, economy, social spirit, trampling of rights and democratic practice, and which required NZ to seal the borders and adopt an elimination strategy.
8. COVID-19 in early 2020 could only be mediated through lockdown, social distancing and other non-pharmaceutical interventions.
9. COVID-19 would cause in NZ an estimated 30,000 (or more, from variance in the many models) thousands to die and countless thousands to become ill.

10.COVID-19 cure would arrive in a vaccine, being developed at Warp Speed.
11. COVID-19 Vaccines are both safe and effective.
12. COVID-19 Vaccines will be voluntary.
13. COVID-19 Vaccination would enable New Zealanders to regain their lost freedoms.

The promotion of a strategy that is anti disinformation without defining the controversial matters one slurs as disinformation and assert that is the grounds for the loss of trust in institutions is spurious where one fails to see that the lack of trust has been forsaken by those who inhabit the institutions in favour of a dogmatic narrative view that is found extremely lacking when held up to the enlightenment values of logic and the scientific method.

I note that the just announced National Security Strategy document published 4 August 2023 has the same ideological failing and as such can never hope to regain the trust of those people who can easily see through global government's including New Zealand's Government's lies and the mendaciousness of the institutions; Universities, NGOs, international bodies; WHO, UN and various philanthropic bodies who all proselytised the false narrative aimed at an agenda part of which was/is to inject the human population with novel toxic mutagenic products, see Moderna and Pfizer June 2020 filings for indications as to the novel nature of the technology platform:

Moderna's SEC filing for mid 2020:  https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm 

Pfizer's SEC filing for mid 2020:  https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000078003/000007800320000060/pfe-06282020x10q.htm 

These COVID-19 Vaccine products were developed on novel platforms based on lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery systems, themselves with a questionable safety profile. 

New Zealand's Government committed to vaccinating the population in their formal documentation published 15 April 2020; COVID-19 Health and Disability System Response Plan

https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/covid-19-health-and-disability-system-response-plan 

Latest stats from MoH has it that 4 million have had 2 shots, 1.7 million at least one booster and guess what official stats have 2.5 million being official COVID-19 cases. Given that many such as myself didn't report our infection, I imagine that the real number of New Zealanders who have contracted COVID-19 is well over 3 million.

The COVID-19 shots did nothing to stop COVID-19 infection or transmission and only had bad effects causing thousands of adverse events and deaths in many of the recipients. 

The COVID-19 measures have caused much economic, vandalism and personal and societal harm and injury. The NZ COVID-19 Response is a complete failure and ought not be repeated in the event of a future pandemic involving a respiratory pathogen. 

Your guest speaker Sir Ashley Bloomfield is co-chair of the International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments working group, and is actively pursuing a policy that would lock New Zealand into repetitions of the COVID-19 Response error in the event of a future pandemic involving a respiratory pathogen. 

The best thing UNANZ might do to assist to reestablish trust in institutions is to inform itself as to the facts of the matter and then act to put those many wrongs right, which would require the Government and institutions to acknowledge their profound error in perpetrating the COVID-19 Response in lockstep with Australia, UK, Canada and the US. 

Who initiated the pandemic? Dr Anthony Fauci's NIAID funding of coronavirus research in Wuhan China did that have something to do with the bug in the system? Go figure. 

I'm more than happy to provide further material for your consideration or engage in a dialogue including introducing you to people expert in the field, where you are interested in the truth of the matter.

Sincerely 

Ends. 

On Tuesday 5 September 2023 I wrote a follow up letter to (UNANZ) addressing it to their leadership, National Executive member and their National Council representatives. I searched for and found email addresses for most of the National Executive members and included those in the address line of the follow up email. (It must have gone through as I gained advice from my email provider that one of the addressees had my email address blocked)

That letter also failed to gain any response or acknowledgement. 

The following is a replication of that emailed correspondence. 

-----

Dear UNANZ Leaders, Executive and National Council,

UNA NZ National Executive

Karim Dickie, National President
James Bushell, Vice President
Gayathri Paranisamy, Immediate Past President
Vacant, National Executive Officer
Amelia Blamey, National Treasurer
Catherine Ashworth, Secretary
Nick Abel, National President, UN Youth New Zealand
Annie Wu, National Council Representative on the Executive
Patrick Metham, National Council Representative on the Executive
 
UNA NZ National Council

Abeer Youssef, Special Officer for Humanitarian Affairs
Alyn Ware, Special Officer for Peace and Security
Dulce Piacentini, Special Officer for Human Rights
John O'Brien, Special Officer for UN Renewal
Vacant, Special Officer for UN Agenda 2030, SDGs
Joy Dunsheath MNZM JP, WFUNA Executive Committee Member
Wajirani Adhihetty, Special Officer for Sustainable Economy and Innovation
Vacant, Special Officer for UN Education
Ishant Ghulyani, Special Officer for Global Health
Steven Arnold, President, Northern Region Branch
Dr Gray Southon, President, Tauranga Branch
Mano Manohoran, President, Waikato Group
Kate Smith, President, Whanganui Branch
Martine Udahemuka, President, Wellington Branch
Pauline McKay, President, Canterbury Branch
Monique Corson, President, Manawatu Branch
Patrick Metham, Ordinary Member of the National Council
Annie Wu, Ordinary Member of the National Council
Acacia Wall, Communications Officers
Events Officer Hope Lan 

My name is Greg Rzesniowiecki and I am an advocate for rule of law, freedom and human rights. 

I last wrote to your leadership 7 August 2023 with some concerns about your agenda and keynote speaker given the apparent inconsistencies between your constitution and some of the policies pursued by Sir Ashley Bloomfield as Director General of Health for the Labour Government (in coalition with NZ First)  2017-2020 and (alone) 2020-2023.

I found it surprising and unprofessional that your officers failed to even acknowledge the 7 August 2023 correspondence below in this thread. Was it referred to your National Council meeting for consideration?

My concern is that where you breach your constitutional objects you derogate from your constitutional purpose and as such are acting inappropriately.

Authoritative figures and institutions label data, knowledge and facts as disinformation, misinformation or malinformation for purposes of censorship. 

Your leadership apparently views with disdain my emailed opinion (forwarded 7 August email) as they didn't bother addressing or refuting the claims I made that you are in breach of your Objectives and the UN Charter, which you purport to uphold. 

Perhaps these facts have not previously been presented to your leadership and so they struggle to know what to do or offer in response - given your organisation has already booked Sir Ashley Bloomfield and set the agenda with reference to Disinformation etc. 

I suggest that you consider opening your conference to one who might provide a rebuttal of the alleged disinformation, one who might provide a balanced report on the costs and harms of the pandemic response and the medical solution characterised as the 'safe and effective' COVID-19 Vaccines, notwithstanding there was no long term safety data when the novel mRNA LNP injectable products were initially marketed. Since 2021 the evidence mounts indicating the deleterious effects; harms, injury, death and long term dysregulation of recipients' immune systems. 

For instance in my petition to the House to fix the Bill of Rights (which I reference in the 7 August correspondence to your leaders) I proposed a new section 5A to fix the problem of section 5 Justified Limits being used to unreasonably limit people's right to refuse medical interventions and experiments. Recall the NZ Bill of Rights is NZ's attempt to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which you say you uphold.

Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Amend Section 5 and add a new section 5A to the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 published November 2021 and sponsored to the House in December 2021 by ACT Party leader David Seymour.

https://petitions.parliament.nz/12be63a5-836a-4f47-be8b-945e5b0bb0c9

Here's a link to the evidence I tendered and screen capture of the papers, which includes the advice from the Ministry of Justice to the Petitions Committee. note the Ministry of Health did not offer any advice to counter my evidence in respect to the COVID-19 phenomena or the Government's Response:

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/submissions-and-advice/all?custom=PET_117877 

My Petition read; That the House of Representatives amend Section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by inserting “and subject to section 5A”, and insert a new section 5A: “Unjustified limitations” to say “None of sections 4, 5, 6 provide any justified limits on rights and freedoms contained in sections 8, 9, 10 and 11”

Read the Bill of Rights here particularly sections 8, 9, 10 and 11:

https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html#DLM225505

I provided two initial documents to the Petitions Committee and a request to present oral evidence in person. They didn't want to let me near them in person.

The Petitions Committee invited advice from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

MoJ provided advice to the Petitions Committee July 2021:

https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/53SCPET_EVI_117877_PET2895/abd48fdb561608dcea6862d0488f4c50d80af664

Which said in part; Most of the rights cited in the petition either cannot be justifiably limited, or would be very difficult to justifiably limit, as described in the next section.

 MoJ said in respect to s 11 (the right to refuse medication); Section 11 protects the ability of individuals to decline to have medical treatment, safeguarding individual autonomy and dignity. There are a number of circumstances in which section 11 can be justifiably limited; for example, medical treatment of children, cases where a power of attorney is activated, or where persons need emergency medical treatment and are unconscious. Rule 7(4) of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights permits treatment without consent in circumstances such as these.

The Ministry of Justice advice did nothing to negate my proposed amendment to BORA, and in respect to the critique they did offer I propose a solution, see below.

In August 2021 I provided the Petitions Committee with a response to the MoJ paper and adjustment to s 11 to accommodate their specific concerns. From page 7 of my paper.

https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/53SCPET_EVI_117877_PET3069/458fc077305f6da86df6993e039629631107fda3

Without prejudice, MoJ's advice provides for limited derogations and only for specific circumstances where a person, not a class of persons, might be unable to provide their consent freely; eg: children and persons unable to make decisions for themselves.

If the examples provided in the MoJ advice are the sum total of the NZ Government and Parliament's concern in relation to the absolutism of the proposed BORA amendment, I imagine a suitable qualifying addendum might be added to section 11 similar to the caveat in Sec 8; that is, the right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice.

Without prejudice, section 11 might state; Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment; the caveat being; informed consent might be provided for children by their guardians, and for persons unable to make decisions for themselves by lawfully enacted means. 

This elaborates the individual and specific nature of any derogation. The petitioner looks favourably upon any similar textual solution.

I would have thought that an organisation UNANZ who purports to uphold the UN Charter and human rights would welcome ideas to stop government overreach and breaches of human rights rather than placing the despots who imposed unlawful mandates upon the NZ population onto a pedestal. 

You will never rebuild trust in institutions if you fail to address the root cause and problem, the institutions breached their public trust and need to redeem themselves through proper inquiry and remedy. The UNANZ appears to be complicit in breaching the letter and spirit of the law that you assert you uphold. The plain English reading of the ICCPR article 7 which cannot be derogated even in times of emergency is;

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Most sincerely

Greg Rzesniowiecki

Ends. 

-----

I will update this post where I gain any response from folk at the UNANZ.