(Source of Information NOVEMBER 27, 2017 12:12PM BY DAVID FARRAR) Ghahraman defended not prosecuted the genociders in Rwanda. Paul Little reports at the Herald an interview with Green MP Golriz Ghahraman: In 2008 I’d been working in new zealand as a junior barrister for two and a half years. The next logical step would have been to go out on my own, but I got accepted to do a masters degree at Oxford. While I was waiting to fly to England, I met a defence lawyer working for the Rwanda Tribunal. He said: “You should come over, we need a lawyer at the coalface.” I’d gone into law in the first place to do human rights law. I spent about three months as an intern then went to The Hague on a consultancy at the Yugoslavia Tribunal, then was offered a job as a lawyer for the Rwanda Tribunal. So she was recruited by a defence lawyer at the Rwanda Tribunal? So did she prosecute the genociders or defend them?

And even with the UN, defence lawyers didn’t have as many resources as the other side. To me it’s important to have that fair process. No matter how guilty someone looks, guilt needs to be established. But the defence team didn’t get paper for the photocopiers — it was like even the UN didn’t really believe in it. From back here, having worked in court, I know the defence gets about half the resources of the prosecution. That’s really frightening — there’s definitely demographics involved. So she wasn’t prosecuting the war criminals in Rwanda, but defending them. And complains the UN didn’t give them enough resources to defend them better! The total cost of the trials was in fact around $1 billion! Now I had no idea before reading this article that her work in Rwanda was defending the war criminals, not prosecuting them. I doubt anyone else knew either. Let’s look at what her Green Party CV says:

Her studies at Oxford, and work as a lawyer for the United Nations and in New Zealand, have focused on enforcing human rights and holding governments to account. Golriz has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power, and restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities, particularly empowering women engaged in peace and justice initiatives. Now 99% of people who read that would think she was working at prosecuting the abusers, not defending them.

Look at this Guardian article from a few weeks ago: It was in this South Pacific melting pot, says Ghahraman, that she acquired the confidence to study human rights law at oxford university, and, later, to stand up in court representing the UN in tribunals prosecuting some of the world’s worst war criminals, including perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide. Now again 99% of people reading this would assume she was prosecuting in Rwanda. But she was actually defending the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide. Former Labour staffer Phil Quin has actually worked in Rwanda with the survivors of the genocide there. He is highly unimpressed: Everyone deserves a defense, but please don’t preen as a human rights advocates when you dedicated a year to keeping these killers from justice. And defense underfunded?? Don’t make me laugh. ICTR spent 500m defending these guys. — Phil Quin (@philquin) November 26, 2017

There is nothing wrong with being a defence lawyer – even for war criminals. As Quin, says everyone is entitled to a defence. A great mate of mine is a defence lawyer. But the issue here is the way the Greens have selectively published material that makes it looks like she was prosecuting, not defending. She did later go on to prosecute in Cambodia, and again there is nothing wrong with having started as a defence lawyer so you could gain experience to become a prosecutor.  But this is not the story that we were told. Also she was not assigned as a lawyer to defend the Rwanda war criminals. She was a volunteer as Quin again highlights: Critical point. She did so not as part of an official legal team, but as a VOLUNTEER. Of all the ways to save the world, she chose to send killers back to the villages where their victims’ families are trying to rebuild their lives. — Phil Quin (@philquin) November 26, 2017. uin also highlights one of the persons she defended was Joseph Nziorera. Hook, line and sinker. She’s a straightforward genocide denier. Goodbye, hope you enjoyed your few weeks in Parliament. I’m sure some Assad henchmen could do with your help. . #Rwanda pic.twitter.com/LhNgume3xo — Phil Quin (@philquin) November 26, 2017

Nzirorera was considered one of the main initiators of the Rwandan genocide. Now again a legal system needs prosecutors and defenders. The issue for me isn’t that she worked as a defence lawyer for war criminals, but that all the promotional material to date has given the impression she was prosecuting in Rwanda, not defending. Sure if you look all the way down the Linked In profile, you see the details. So it isn’t that she personally has made a false statement about her work. It is that the narrative built around her has been incomplete and misleading. the guardian article is a great example of that – makes you think she was a prosecutor in Rwanda. The Greens website states her work in Africa was putting on trial world leaders – highly misleading. Her own maiden speech glosses over her work in Rwanda: I was living in Africa working on genocide trials where I then learned how prejudice turns to atrocity. Politicians scapegoating groups, as a group, for any social ills, dehumanising language in the media, used for political gain-Every time I see that I think: That’s how is how it starts. I saw that at the Rwanda Tribunal, at The Hague and when I prosecuted the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Very clever. It doesn’t state she prosecuted in Rwanda but you clearly gain that impression as she lumps it in with prosecuting in Cambodia.

Now imagine this isn’t a Green MP. Imagine this is a National MP who had defended war criminals and genociders in Rwanda. Do you think Labour and Green MPs would say “Well someone has to do it, and it was good work experience, so that’s fine”. Or would they be condemning them at every turn? Green MP Golriz Ghahraman on a life-changing year in Rwanda 27 Nov, 2017 04:39 PM  (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/green-mp-golriz-ghahraman-on-a-life-changing-year-in-rwanda/BVMN2BQWGVAPNVNQFB2ZQEWQEU/?c_id=1&objectid=11947906 )

In 2008 I’d been working in New Zealand as a junior barrister for two and a half years. The next logical step would have been to go out on my own, but I got accepted to do a masters degree at Oxford. While I was waiting to fly to England, I met a defence lawyer working for the Rwanda Tribunal. He said: “You should come over, we need a lawyer at the coalface.” I’d gone into law in the first place to do human rights law. I spent about three months as an intern then went to The Hague on a consultancy at the Yugoslavia Tribunal, then was offered a job as a lawyer for the Rwanda Tribunal. So it was my year of international humanitarian law. For me it was almost cathartic, because as a child I had to escape mass crimes, essentially being committed by governments and based on prejudice. When you get to look at the start of those things, you realise it’s not that mysterious. The Rwandan genocide started from a lack of democracy and human rights and people scapegoating other groups. Politicians cash in on prejudice. The mission was to individualise blame so groups don’t keep going in a cycle of violence. The point was to leave a legacy of everyone being equal before the law and change the culture of impunity so you don’t get to do whatever you want just because you’re the president. The Iranian government did things to us with impunity. And the rest of what you realise is poverty. We were living in Tanzania, in a well-funded UN institution with security all around it. We were in a big, flash complex, eating sanitised salads. We wouldn’t get cholera if we drank the water, because we had water machines at every turn. But at nights when we went to the village pub, it was a different world. And we weren’t really helping with that. And even with the UN, defence lawyers didn’t have as many resources as the other side. To me it’s important to have that fair process. No matter how guilty someone looks, guilt needs to be established. But the defence team didn’t get paper for the photocopiers — it was like even the UN didn’t really believe in it. From back here, having worked in court, I know the defence gets about half the resources of the prosecution. That’s really frightening — there’s definitely demographics involved. And when I finally went to Oxford to do my masters, I had all this beautiful space. I sat studying in beautiful libraries with no funding issues and with the privilege of time to study. To have that when you know these things are happening elsewhere was surreal. I’d fly back and forth, interviewing people who said they’d been tortured, then go back to Oxford, where my room was cleaned every day.  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/profile-on-party-website-of-mp-who-defended-butcher-of-bosnia-now-changed-to-be-more-accurate/Z3T3R2WIFJNXTWTQEO74D4KIOU/

Profile on party website of MP who defended Butcher of Bosnia now changed to be more accurate Author Derek Cheng 28 Nov, 2017. Green MP Golriz Ghahraman worked as part of the legal defence team for Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadžić, who was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. Party co-leader James Shaw is standing by his MP, saying her work on international tribunals as both a defence and prosecution lawyer is all part of a robust justice system. But her profile page on the Green Party website has now been changed to more accurately reflect the legal defence work she did at the Rwanda Tribunal and The Hague, and the prosecution work she did at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. In a series of tweets this week, former Labour staffer Phil Quin criticised Ghahraman’s work at the Rwanda Tribunal, saying she volunteered to defend “the worst killers known to man” and calling her a genocide-denier. Green Party co-leader James Shaw is standing by MP Golriz Ghahraman, saying her work on international tribunals as both a defence and prosecution lawyer is all part of a robust justice system. “Any MP who acted as a voluntary intern to defend war criminals, and authors papers that deny the Rwandan genocide, must resign,” said Quin, who lived and worked in Rwanda for several years.

In a comment piece on Newsroom, he added: “It’s one thing for a UN defence lawyer to be assigned to defend ratbags. It’s quite another to seek them out in a voluntary capacity.”Ghahraman worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide. Quin published a photo of a smiling Ghahraman with Bikindi on Twitter today. Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is escorted in to make an initial appearance at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Photo / Getty. Shaw said Quin’s attacks were politically motivated. “I think Phil knows as well as anybody that a functioning justice system requires both a rigorous prosecution and a rigorous defence in order to make sure that the trial actually delivers the result its intended to.”

Ghahraman said everyone was entitled to a fair trial, “including those accused of very egregious crimes”. “I would essentially be letting down the human rights framework if I thought anything other than that. My work on defence and prosecution has always been equally a point of pride for me.” Her profile page on the Green Party website has now been changed, following her admission that it “could be clearer”. It previously said: “Golriz has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power.” Now it says: “Golriz worked for United Nations Tribunals as part of both defence (Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia) and prosecution (Cambodia) teams.” But she said she has never hid her defence work, and that it’s “certainly not something I’m ashamed of”.  “It’s absolutely offensive to say that I deny genocide, because there’s nothing that’s been more important to me than to highlight genocide as an international crime.”  Legal expert Andrew Geddis came to Ghahraman’s defence today. Writing for the Pundit blog, he wrote: “Ghahraman played a necessary (if hard) role in an internationally established institution designed to resolve in an open and legitimate fashion individual guilt for horrible actions. “Defending nasty individuals is just a part of what international human rights lawyers do.” Golriz Ghahraman says genocide-denier comments ‘absolutely offensive’

Derek Cheng 28 Nov, 2017 05:00 AM

(https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/golriz-ghahraman-says-genocide-denier-comments-absolutely-offensive/TT3GDQI3YM2G7AOOLOLDPQUGTI/ ) Green MP Golriz Ghahraman says it is “absolutely offensive” to be called a genocide-denier, and insists she has not misled the public over defending people accused of genocide in Rwanda. But she admits that her profile page on the Green Party website, which states that she has put African leaders on trial for abusing their power, “could be clearer”. In a series of tweets today, former Labour staffer Phil Quin criticised Ghahraman’s work at the Rwanda Tribunal, saying she defended “the worst killers known to man” and calling her a genocide-denier. “Any MP who acted as a voluntary intern to defend war criminals, and authors papers that deny the Rwandan genocide, must resign,” said Quin, who lived and worked in Rwanda for several years. “Call me old fashioned, but I think volunteering as a ‘life changing experience’ to defend mass murderers (who had the priciest lawyers in the business) should disqualify one from becoming a member of the NZ Parliament,” he said in another tweet. The posts raised questions about whether Ghahraman had misled the public into believing that she had prosecuted those responsible for genocide in Rwanda, when she had in fact been part of defence teams.

Her profile page on the Green party website says: “Golriz has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power.” Ghahraman admitted that her profile page, which she didn’t write, “could be clearer, but it’s certainly not false”. But she said she has never hid her defence work, that it’s “certainly not something I’m ashamed of”, and that international criminal justice needs both the defence and the prosecution to work well to ensure a robust system. “It’s absolutely offensive to say that I deny genocide, because there’s nothing that’s been more important to me than to highlight genocide as an international crime. “The reason we have these trials is to say that genocide is not okay. But that we want it dealt with in a human rights-based process, a fair process that includes a defence and a prosecution and judges and proper investigation.” Joseph Nzirorera died before he could be convicted of genocide in Rwanda. She said that she worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide.

She also worked on the pre-trial of Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadžić, who was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. She worked on the prosecution at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Quin later tweeted that he did not care whether Ghahraman misled the public, but he did care that she defended people in the Rwanda Tribunal in the first place. Ghahraman said she has never met Quin, but that his comments showed “an embarrassing lapse in understanding”. “No one is saying there is no such thing as genocide. It’s like saying a defence lawyer [defending someone charged with murder] in our justice system here is a murder-denier. “My CV is on LinkedIn. It’s certainly not something I’m ashamed of. It’s the human rights model. We have to work on both sides.”

(https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/barry-soper-political-perception-isnt-always-reality/GNBLBK3VVGRATH36K7FBAEUGV4/ ) Barry Soper: Political perception isn’t always reality Barry Soper 28 Nov, 2017. Politics is most certainly about perception and if you look at the publicity blurb surrounding the first refugee elected to our Parliament you would come away thinking Golriz Ghahraman who was born in Iran was a human rights battler, pure and simple. In her maiden speech she talked about living in Africa, working on genocide trials and learning how prejudice turns into atrocity. She waxed about politicians scapegoating groups for any social ills, using dehumanising language in the media for their own gain. Ghahraman went on to say she saw that at the Rwanda Tribunal, at The Hague and when she prosecuted the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Now listening to that you’d think she was the battler she’s been painted as. And that was reinforced by The Greens who are very good at presenting the narrative that suits their purpose, although the narrative surrounding their former co-leader Metiria Turei obviously got out of control and almost led to their undoing. In their blurb about their new MP, The Greens said her work has focused on enforcing human rights and holding governments to account. Golriz, they tell us, has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power and restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities.

Now that leaves the clear impression she was the champion of bringing these people to justice. But in fact at the Rwandan Tribunal she was representing the war criminals in the genocide of around eight hundred thousand Tutsis. She complained about how poorly resourced the defence was. It was as though the United Nations didn’t really believe in the process, she opined. She’s now saying she wasn’t responsible for The Greens’ blurb which may be the case. But it seems she did little to correct it. Few would argue that at any trial, regardless of how heinous the crime is, there’s prosecution and defence. Even the Nazis were defended at Nuremberg. And that was reinforced by The Greens who are very good at presenting the narrative that suits their purpose, although the narrative surrounding their former co-leader Metiria Turei obviously got out of control and almost led to their undoing. In their blurb about their new MP, The Greens said her work has focused on enforcing human rights and holding governments to account. Golriz, they tell us, has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power and restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities.

Now that leaves the clear impression she was the champion of bringing these people to justice. But in fact at the Rwandan Tribunal she was representing the war criminals in the genocide of around eight hundred thousand Tutsis. She complained about how poorly resourced the defence was. It was as though the United Nations didn’t really believe in the process, she opined. She’s now saying she wasn’t responsible for The Greens’ blurb which may be the case. But it seems she did little to correct it. Few would argue that at any trial, regardless of how heinous the crime is, there’s prosecution and defence. Even the Nazis were defended at Nuremberg. You could argue though for Ghahraman to initially volunteer to work for the Rwandan defence and champion herself as a human rights lawyer leaves the wrong impression. But in 36-year-old’s defence at least she fronted up to argue her case, insisting she’s never denied that she worked for the perpetrators of widespread abuse. That may be so, but others and she herself have conveniently overlooked it in presenting the positive. She maintains she simply contributed to the accountability mechanism which is why she’s worked for both sides. It’s just that one side has been consistently and conveniently highlighted over the other. She maintains she simply contributed to the accountability mechanism which is why she’s worked for both sides. It’s just that one side has been consistently and conveniently highlighted over the other.

29th November 2017 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/green-mp-golriz-ghahraman-defended-senior-rwandan-hutu-man-in-extradition-case/EDXOYOMW6QFED4ITA634LGA62M/ Green MP Golriz Ghahraman defended senior Rwandan Hutu man in extradition case Green MP Golriz Ghahraman has been accused of misrepresenting her role as a United Nations Human Rights lawyer – so what, if anything, did she do wrong? .The Law Society has jumped to the defence of Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who is facing fresh claims that she defended a senior Hutu figure in New Zealand from extradition to Rwanda to face charges of genocide. The details of the case remain the subject of extensive suppression orders. Ghahraman has been in the spotlight after an interview with the Weekend Herald in which she openly talked about her internship and defence work with the UN for the Rwanda Tribunal. She has worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide.

The Law Society has jumped to the defence of Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who is facing fresh claims that she defended a senior Hutu figure in New Zealand from extradition to Rwanda to face charges of genocide. The details of the case remain the subject of extensive suppression orders. Ghahraman has been in the spotlight after an interview with the Weekend Herald in which she openly talked about her internship and defence work with the UN for the Rwanda Tribunal. She has worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide. At The Hague, she worked on the pre-trial defence of Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadžić, who was found guilty of crimes against humanity. She also worked on the prosecution at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Last night she changed the wording of her profile page on the Green Party website, following criticisms that it implied she had prosecuted – and not defended – world leaders for abusing their power. Former Labour staffer Phil Quin, who spent three years working in Rwanda, said Ghahraman defended the extradition of a “very senior Hutu” accused of crimes against humanity. The man, who refutes the accusations, came to New Zealand and was granted refugee status and citizenship. “When he was found … and ordered to be extradited to face his accusers, who was the defence lawyer that opposed his extradition?” Quin asked Newstalk ZB’s Leighton Smith. “I cannot for the life of me comprehend why any lawyer or moral human being would opt to engage in the defence of these people.”

Ghahraman confirmed on Newshub’s AM Show that she had worked for a Rwandan refugee in an extradition case, but was reluctant to mention details citing suppression orders. “We were trying to get a fair process around it here so that everyone could present their witness evidence. That’s an ongoing case that I’m not on anymore.” Quin said he was outraged by Ghahraman’s moral judgement, rather than the abstract legal principles of every defendant deserving a fair trial. He said he had received hundreds of responses on Twitter from “disgusted” Rwandans reacting to a photo of a beaming Ghahraman with Bikindi. “Those kinds of moral choices – forget about the law – that bring into question her judgement as a leader in our Parliament.” Quin asked Ghahraman to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda genocide account, rather than the account that her defence team was part of.

A spokeswoman for the Greens said Ghahraman had already expressed her views on the Rwandan genocide and would not be commenting further. Ghahraman has rejected suggestions that she was misleading about the nature of her work, and says it is nothing to be ashamed of. She has said the work, whether for the defence or the prosecution, is important in establishing the rule of law and the UN human rights model. “It’s not about denying genocide. That’s what I find offensive. We’re all there, the UN is there to say that genocide is a crime … This is what these trials are about.” In an unusual move, the Law Society issued a press release standing by Ghahraman, saying it was wrong to identify a lawyer with their client’s actions. Convenor of the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee Steve Bonnar QC said defence lawyers often had no choice about who to act for. “The personal attributes of the prospective client and the merits of the matter upon which the lawyer is consulted are not considered good cause for refusing to accept instructions. “The defence lawyer is required to put the prosecution to proof in obtaining a conviction, regardless of any personal belief or opinion of the lawyer as to the client’s guilt or innocence. It is not the role of the lawyer to determine a client’s guilt or innocence – that is the role of the Tribunal, Judge or jury hearing the case.”

Green MP Golriz Ghahraman defended senior Rwandan Hutu man in extradition case 29th November 2017. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/green-mp-golriz-ghahraman-defended-senior-rwandan-hutu-man-in-extradition-case/EDXOYOMW6QFED4ITA634LGA62M/. The Law Society has jumped to the defence of Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who is facing fresh claims that she defended a senior Hutu figure in New Zealand from extradition to Rwanda to face charges of genocide.The details of the case remain the subject of extensive suppression orders. Ghahraman has been in the spotlight after an interview with the Weekend Herald in which she openly talked about her internship and defence work with the UN for the Rwanda Tribunal. She has worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide. At The Hague, she worked on the pre-trial defence of Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadžić, who was found guilty of crimes against humanity. She also worked on the prosecution at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. She changed the wording of her profile page on the Green Party website, following criticisms that it implied she had prosecuted – and not defended – world leaders for abusing their power. Former Labour staffer Phil Quin, who spent three years working in Rwanda, said Ghahraman defended the extradition of a “very senior Hutu” accused of crimes against humanity. The man, who refutes the accusations, came to New Zealand and was granted refugee status and citizenship. “When he was found … and ordered to be extradited to face his accusers, who was the defence lawyer that opposed his extradition?” Quin asked Newstalk ZB’s Leighton Smith. “I cannot for the life of me comprehend why any lawyer or moral human being would opt to engage in the defence of these people.”

Ghahraman confirmed on Newshub’s AM Show that she had worked for a Rwandan refugee in an extradition case, but was reluctant to mention details citing suppression orders. “We were trying to get a fair process around it here so that everyone could present their witness evidence. That’s an ongoing case that I’m not on anymore.” Quin said he was outraged by Ghahraman’s moral judgement, rather than the abstract legal principles of every defendant deserving a fair trial. He said he had received hundreds of responses on Twitter from “disgusted” Rwandans reacting to a photo of a beaming Ghahraman with Bikindi. “Those kinds of moral choices – forget about the law – that bring into question her judgement as a leader in our Parliament.” Quin asked Ghahraman to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda genocide account, rather than the account that her defence team was part of.

A spokeswoman for the Greens said Ghahraman had already expressed her views on the Rwandan genocide and would not be commenting further. Ghahraman has rejected suggestions that she was misleading about the nature of her work, and says it is nothing to be ashamed of. She has said the work, whether for the defence or the prosecution, is important in establishing the rule of law and the UN human rights model. “It’s not about denying genocide. That’s what I find offensive. We’re all there, the UN is there to say that genocide is a crime … This is what these trials are about.”In an unusual move, the Law Society issued a press release standing by Ghahraman, saying it was wrong to identify a lawyer with their client’s actions. Convenor of the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee Steve Bonnar QC said defence lawyers often had no choice about who to act for. “The personal attributes of the prospective client and the merits of the matter upon which the lawyer is consulted are not considered good cause for refusing to accept instructions. “The defence lawyer is required to put the prosecution to proof in obtaining a conviction, regardless of any personal belief or opinion of the lawyer as to the client’s guilt or innocence. It is not the role of the lawyer to determine a client’s guilt or innocence – that is the role of the Tribunal, Judge or jury hearing the case.”

WAKE UP NZ: What are your thoughts on this?

Jordan Williams: Golriz Ghahraman saga reveals Greens in-fighting By Jordan Williams 29 Nov, 2017  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/jordan-williams-golriz-ghahraman-saga-reveals-greens-in-fighting/C2ZROPG3V4KQPRGMODNZFBB254/

Measuring Happiness by Metrics:  Is about quantifying what is subjective opinion. Depending on socio-economic status or culture, mood or other psychological factors, an inappropriate, inaccurate measurement of happiness. The overall quality of life varies from person to person, different lifestyles and personal preferences. Health determines life expectancy. Life expectation vary, they wax and they wane. Happiness is the state of the mind with multiple interpretations.

Psychological factors are uncertainties, the overall quality  depends on numerous multilayered  variables. The Metric Happiness Index is about the dark side of politics, academia, scientific analysis  and who interprets the data and for what purpose, and the biases that lie within the interpretation of Happiness.  Happiness is a state of the mind with multiple interpretations. The Happiness Index cannot be quantified or qualified creditably, accurately by the measurement of metrics. For instance, a person can be unhappy about something happening at home but happy at the same time in task away from their home, performing an activity, therefore that’s just one example of Metric Happiness Index being a bitter pill to swallow, statically bad metric measurements. Metrics do not take into account ones morale.

Revisiting the Kingdom of Bhutan that deported approx. 100,000 Nepalese because they did not fit  Bhutanese Buddhist traditional dress, language, religion even though they had lived in the kingdom for centuries, the Nepalese Bhutanese were imprisoned, tortured, killed and deported like criminals. Became the people of no country they could really call home. These people were invited many centuries ago by the Bhutanese to build Stupa’s for Bhutan. Stupa’s are an important part of Buddhist architecture. These are religious mounds where saints and monks remain that have been cremated are kept. But centuries later these Nepalese people whose homes had been the Kingdom of Bhutan for so long were treated with extreme cruelty. There was only to be one way of life in Bhutan and that did not include the Bhutanese Nepalese people.

The King of Bhutan in 1970 first introduced the Happiness Index into Bhutan in the early 1970’s, however the outside world were clearly taking notice by 2008 as the Bhutanese Happiness Index became known. The 4th king of Bhutan in 1972 declared ‘Gross Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product’.  In 2011 the UN unanimously adopted a General Assembly Resolution introduced by Bhutan and its Happiness Index approach. The  small Kingdom of Bhutan  only 23,857 square miles slightly larger than Switzerland became much more known on the global stage. It wasn’t until 2019 that Jacinda Ardern adopted the Bhutanese Happiness Index like the King of Bhutan to replace NZ’s GDP with the measurement of metrics, namely ‘happiness indicators. GDP was more transparent when it came to holding the government accountable for its spending. The Happiness Metrics model significant for non transparency, cover ups of corruption and inaccuracies.

2.When the King Of Bhutan first introduced his Happiness Index, the Buddhist population psyche overall was that of seeking contentment, training the mind. Simple ways of life that were non materialistic. This is what the Globalist power elite and Authoritarian States, the WEF and UN-Socialists, Marxists, Communists would like to  think, believe that Bhutan is the ‘Happiest place in the World’. They want you to embrace the ‘Happiness Index’.

Bhutan has entered the post modernized globalist agenda of sustainability of climate doom and gloom. Yet the Himalaya’s have three climate’s ranging the warm weather to grow oranges and colder weather to grow potatoes. The Kingdom of Bhutanese people face serious socio-economic challenges  The Kingdoms Happiness Index has 9 Domains and 33 Happiness Indicators including that od ‘Cultural Diversity and Resilience, Ecological Diversity, Bio-diversity and good governance. In the 2019 World Happiness Assessment Report Bhutan came 95th. Bhutans is weak in the Education, Health Sectors, has serious social problems, family violence, human trafficking. The health sector failings- increased cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes.

The Himalaya’s have three climate variances. Bhutan has been embedded with Agenda 2030 (UN) Sustainability Development Goals. There is the prohibiting of exporting of timber, wood is used to heat homes by using cast iron stoves. Bhutan although geographically isolated is landlocked by powerful dangerous neighbours-India and China. In Bhutan’s north – Tibet has been swallowed up by China and India’s power is fast increasing in this globalized world. Bhutan like most UN Nation member states are embedded in this global psychological warfare, repression, oppression and recession, unemployment and poverty. There are no sign posts for the Kingdom of Bhutan, it is a isolated geopolitical place that is vulnerable to corruption, violence and political opportunism.

There are massive problems, inaccuracies when it comes to the Happiness Index and the Wellbeing of the Nation. Happiness is too subjective has far too many facets, people experience emotions in different ways. Metric measures of Happiness are inaccurate, incorrect, inappropriate cannot measure personal happiness. Whether it be a Global Happiness Index or New Zealand’s Happiness Index, it’s a sham and therefore corrupt. Happiness Economics this is nonsense, there are numerous biases and this is dam right counter productive, hides government failures and the way they spend tax payer funds, non transparency easier to achieve. Does not measure how people feel from one minute to the next, from one day to the next, from one week to the next let alone annually or in a Happiness Metric Index budget that is introduced to the people of NZ recently.

The Kingdom Of Bhutan and its Happiness Index embraced by the 2019 Labour led government, where Ardern was praised worldwide for her Happiness Index initiative. Bhutan- New Zealand the people face restrictions on freedom of speech, on peaceful assembly. In Bhutan restrictions on domestic and international mobilization and also Human trafficking.

The Happiness Metric Index” And Happiness 15 Minute  Smart Cities. Smart approaches to measuring happiness mean mobilizing an ever increasing array of mobile apps, behavioral data that aims to sense, explain our measurements of happiness. A popular approach for authoritarian government, the Happiness Metric Measurement an approach to move beyond economic growth to ‘communist de-growth’ where Behavioral Economists are highly influential in public policy agenda’s on the world stage. The Happiness Index of Smart Cities:  Informed by predictive behavioral analytics, wearable emotional sensing, mass surveillance, tracking your mobile phone, where you are, whom you are with, virtual doctors appointments, individuals mapped, measured and managed.

Measuring Happiness, redefining observable behaviour, monitoring a persons mental aspects. Economists working in ‘Happiness Studies’ in neuroscience, genetic evidence and comparable measures to define what happiness means. The serious limitations, what’s happening within our minds and what’s happening in our personal outside world. Where people who have mental health issues can report they are happy, but suicide rates are high. New Zealand, Denmark and Finland all have high Suicide rates but Happiness Indexes yet were assessed relatively happy on the World Happiness Report. NZ with the highest Youth Suicide rate in the developed world. Happiness based policy making: Is a vague term that means different things to different people, its impossible to come up with a definition that captures all aspects of happiness and wellbeing for every person. Philosophers studied happiness for thousands of years but have  failed to arrive at a single definition.

The Nature Of Happiness: There is no simple theory about the nature of happiness. Happiness is extremely complex, multi-faceted, multilayered, cannot be reduced to a metric formular. So what do we do, do we call it out for what it is – inaccurate, a lie, corrupt. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the time..

Do we journey down the path of being so called Happiness Metric Index pheasants or do we pursue the ‘Freedom of Choice’. Do we adapt to each of us being quantified, measured or do we embrace our individual identity, preserve our dignity and self worth as unique individual human  beings.? Measuring Happiness in quantitative metric terms is a disillusionment, this in reality is about re-engineering society, re-engineering peoples behaviours, destroying personal identity, destroying peace and happiness, this is what is being pursued behind the political closed doors of the cesspit in Wellington.

Carol Sakey

REFERENCE: CITIZEN’S INITIATED REFERENDA ACT 1993

A POLITICAL SIDE-SHOW: In 1992 the National Government introduced the ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Bill this became legislation in 1993 and operational in 1994. The Act permitting Citizens Initiated referendums (CIR) to be held on questions that are received via petitions that support at least 10% of registered electors in a 12 month period. That CIR’s are non-binding, That citizens of New Zealand can be restricted of their views. Referendums in other words in reality ‘Citizen Initiated Referendums’ are no more than just a ‘political side-show’

DEMOCRACY: Referendums are an important part of New Zealand’s democracy, as they allow the public to have a direct voice on changes to the law, however the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 does NOT give the citizens of New Zealand ‘end decision making rights’ because the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 is ‘Non-binding’, which means the Government is not bound to the decision making of the electoral voting citizens of New Zealand.

THE GENERAL ELECTION:  A Government referendum can be held with a General Election if there is strong debate on a particular issue. Government power to make that decision

TYPES OF REFERENDUMS: There are two types of referendums namely ‘Government initiated and Citizens initiated.

GOVERNMENT INITIATED REFERENDUM: Are promoted by the Government. Can be used to bring legislation into law. Can gauge how the public feel on particular issues. Can be ‘binding’ or ‘non-binding’, this means the government acts, determines the final result, has end decision making rights. The ‘eligible voting electorate (peoples of New Zealand) have NO ‘End Decision Making Rights’ to determine their country’s future.

CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUMS: Any New Zealand citizens can petition for a referendum, this is namely a ‘citizens initiated’ referendum. 10% of eligible voters must sign the petition to support the referendum. (There were 3.5 million people enrolled to vote in the 2020 election). Citizens Initiated Referendums are ‘Non-binding’, this means the government does NOT have to act on the end result. (Non-binding referendums can be held on any subject)

Just one example of this:- Should the size of the House of Representatives should be reduced from 120 members to 99 members?. Governments end decision making rights were determined ‘we still have 120 members in the House of Representatives’.

HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND REFERENDUMS: The first referendum was in the early 19^th and early 20^th century, the limiting of drinking alcohol  this held a lot of political sway. Four referendums were held between 1894 and 1908 on liquor licenses however these were not ‘national’ referendums, people could only have their say in the areas they lived in. 1911 was New Zealand’s first nationwide referendum on prohibition of alcohol sales. At the end of the 20^th century 2/3rds of the referendums held were about alcohol . . The New Zealand Flag Referendum (2015-2016). 5  designed flags were shortlisted out of 40, this was narrowed down from 10,000 designs submitted by NZrs.

NZ FLAG:  In the 2016 Referendum voters chose to keep the current flag instead of a preferred alternative option. This is called a ‘Consultative’ referendum that is used by the government to gauge public mood on particular topics.

CONSULTATIVE REFERENDUMS: An example of this includes the following:-Hotel bars staying open for longer (1949 and 1967).  Military training should be made compulsory (1949) and -compulsory retirement scheme should be introduced (1997). More recently the 2020 referendums were held beside the 2020 general elections they were the ‘End of Life Choice Act 2019. And  also that of  the ‘recreational cannabis use’.

Government determines legislation.

NUMBER OF SIGNATURES FOR A REFERENDUM TO BE HELD: To support the holding of a referendum you must have 10% of eligible electoral voters nationwide. Again I note that the government is NOT bound by the results concluded by a ‘Citizens Initiated Referendum’

THE CITIZEN’S INITIATED REFERENDUM PROCESS: A person submits a proposal to the Clerk of the House of Representatives asked them to promote a referendum petition. The wording of the proposed petition is determined by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, this can take up to 3 months. The Clerk decides the final wording of the petition and approves the collection of signatures. The petitioner has 12 months to gather enough signatures of 10% of the eligible voting public that support the proposal (petition), this is then delivered to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Government decides, determines the process of the proposed petition.

PETITION COM PLIANCY: Is determined by the government. If compliant the Speaker of the House presents the petition to the House of Representatives. If NOT compliant, not enough signatures the petition then lapses. However the petition can re-submit the petition and has a further 2 months to gain more signatures. Compliancy determined by the Government.

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL: Sets the date for the referendum, this must be within a month of the petition being presented to the House of Representatives. It must be held within a year of the presentation date unless 75% of MP’s defer it. Government has the power to  determine deferral of a petition

THE OFFICIAL IN FORMATIONS ACT 1982. The processes under the ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 are subject to the Official Information’s Act 1982.

REFERENDUM: Is a direct vote by the eligible voting electorate on a proposal, a law, a political issue. This may result in the adoption of a new policy or an amendment of a policy.

CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDA ACT    1991: States the following:-

7.141 Establishes a process allowing persons or organizations to initiate a non-binding national referendum on a subject of their choice, if 10 percent of registered voters sign a petition in support of the proposal of the promoter of the referendum. A referendum is a vote on a question. Referendums usually have a “yes” or “no” answer, but can have more than two possible answers. Referendums can be held with an election, in a stand-alone poll, or by postal vote.

(3)  7.142. At times a government response to a petition or referendum will be necessary. Most will be subject to public attention to be politically significant. Any decisions on how, when to respond is made by the government collectively. Individual Ministers should generally refrain from becoming personally involved in a petition (referendum proposal) without cabinet approval

7.143 The government can decide to respond to a referendum proposal at any stage of the referendum process. For example (a) make a declaration of support for the proposed referendum. (b) Indicate the willingness to take into account public debate over the issue at hand. (c) Rejection of the proposal. (d) Make a provision of information to inform the debate of the proposal.

7.144 As a matter of principle, agencies to avoid commenting publicly on the merits of referendum proposals unless they have permission of the Minister to do so.

7.145 It is deemed appropriate for agencies to give the Clerk of the House of Representatives technical assistance in finalizing wording of the proposal. Assistance must be restricted to helping ensure that the proposal (petition/referendum) conveys clearly the purpose, effect of the proposal put forward by the promoter. (This can raise sensitive issues as to the changing of the wording of which was originally stated by the promoter of the proposal)

DEMOCRACY: Does NOT exist in New Zealand because the citizens of New Zealand, those with eligible electoral voting rights have NO end decision rights as to the future of New Zealand and how New Zealand Citizens lives are determined by legislation.

POLICIES PROMOTED IN POLITICAL ELECTIONEERING OF CAMPAIGN CANDIDATES : That publicly are NOT delivering policies to amend the ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 from  ‘Non-binding’ to a ‘Binding’ New Zealand Citizens Initiated Binding Act’ (Legislation). Should be questioned as to ‘Why they do not propose in their policy making giving the electoral voting citizens of New Zealand a voice to determine their own future’, the future of their families and generations of New Zealanders to come? INSIST ON A CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER.

MY PERSONAL CONCERNS ARE ‘THE DISCRIMINATION OF ABORTION’ AND THE END OF LIFE CHOICE ACT THAT HAS VERY DANGEROUS CONCEPTS. These were introduced during the COVID19 Pandemic when the people of NZ were experiencing restrictions, knockdowns and compliance’s never ever experienced before. When the government was supposedly promoting jabs to save lives, they were making plans to take away life. (no-one knows what goes on behind the privacy of another persons life, behind closed doors.. Eg family relations for example neglect.

The lack of funding for Hospice.that supports not only the patient but that of their family too whom are also grieving

Carol Sakey  

https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinet-office/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manual/7-executive-legislation-12

Measuring Happiness by Metrics:  Is about quantifying what is subjective opinion. Depending on socio-economic status or culture, mood or other psychological factors, an inappropriate, inaccurate measurement of happiness. The overall quality of life varies from person to person, different lifestyles and personal preferences. Health determines life expectancy. Life expectation vary, they wax and they wane. Happiness is the state of the mind with multiple interpretations

Psychological factors are uncertainties, the overall quality  depends on numerous multilayered  variables. The Metric Happiness Index is about the dark side of politics, academia, scientific analysis  and who interprets the data and for what purpose, and the biases that lie within the interpretation of Happiness.  Happiness is a state of the mind with multiple interpretations. The Happiness Index cannot be quantified or qualified creditably, accurately by the measurement of metrics. For instance, a person can be unhappy about something happening at home but happy at the same time in task away from their home, performing an activity, therefore that’s just one example of Metric Happiness Index being a bitter pill to swallow, statically bad metric measurements. Metrics do not take into account ones morale.

Revisiting the Kingdom of Bhutan that deported approx. 100,000 Nepalese because they did not fit  Bhutanese Buddhist traditional dress, language, religion even though they had lived in the kingdom for centuries, the Nepalese Bhutanese were imprisoned, tortured, killed and deported like criminals. Became the people of no country they could really call home. These people were invited many centuries ago by the Bhutanese to build Stupa’s for Bhutan. Stupa’s are an important part of Buddhist architecture. These are religious mounds where saints and monks remain that have been cremated are kept. But centuries later these Nepalese people whose homes had been the Kingdom of Bhutan for so long were treated with extreme cruelty. There was only to be one way of life in Bhutan and that did not include the Bhutanese Nepalese people.

The King of Bhutan in 1970 first introduced the Happiness Index into Bhutan in the early 1970’s, however the outside world were clearly taking notice by 2008 as the Bhutanese Happiness Index became known. The 4^th king of Bhutan in 1972 declared ‘Gross Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product’.  In 2011 the UN unanimously adopted a General Assembly Resolution introduced by Bhutan and its Happiness Index approach. The  small Kingdom of Bhutan  only 23,857 square miles slightly larger than Switzerland became much more known on the global stage. It wasn’t until 2019 that Jacinda Ardern adopted the Bhutanese Happiness Index like the King of Bhutan to replace NZ’s GDP with the measurement of metrics, namely ‘happiness indicators. GDP was more transparent when it came to holding the government accountable for its spending. The Happiness Metrics model significant for non transparency, cover ups of corruption and inaccuracies.

When the King Of Bhutan first introduced his Happiness Index, the Buddhist population psyche overall was that of seeking contentment, training the mind. Simple ways of life that were non materialistic. This is what the Globalist power elite and Authoritarian States, the WEF and UN-Socialists, Marxists, Communists would like to  think, believe that Bhutan is the ‘Happiest place in the World’. They want you to embrace the ‘Happiness Index’.

Bhutan has entered the post modernized globalist agenda of sustainability of climate doom and gloom. Yet the Himalaya’s have three climate’s ranging the warm weather to grow oranges and colder weather to grow potatoes. The Kingdom of Bhutanese people face serious socio-economic challenges  The Kingdoms Happiness Index has 9 Domains and 33 Happiness Indicators including that od ‘Cultural Diversity and Resilience, Ecological Diversity, Bio-diversity and good governance.

In the 2019 World Happiness Assessment Report Bhutan came 95^th. Bhutans is weak in the Education, Health Sectors, has serious social problems, family violence, human trafficking. The health sector failings- increased cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes.

The Himalaya’s have three climate variances. Bhutan has been embedded with Agenda 2030 (UN) Sustainability Development Goals. There is the prohibiting of exporting of timber, wood is used to heat homes by using cast iron stoves. Bhutan although geographically isolated is landlocked by powerful dangerous neighbors-India and China

In Bhutan’s north – Tibet has been swallowed up by China and India’s power is fast increasing in this globalized world. Bhutan like most UN Nation member states are embedded in this global psychological warfare, repression, oppression and recession, unemployment and poverty. There are no sign posts for the Kingdom of Bhutan, it is a isolated geopolitical place that is vulnerable to corruption, violence and political opportunism.

There are massive problems, inaccuracies when it comes to the Happiness Index and the Wellbeing of the Nation. Happiness is too subjective has far too many facets, people experience emotions in different ways. Metric measures of Happiness are inaccurate, incorrect, inappropriate cannot measure personal happiness. Whether it be a Global Happiness Index or New Zealand’s Happiness Index, it’s a sham and therefore corrupt.

Happiness Economics this is nonsense, there are numerous biases and this is dam right counter productive, hides government failures and the way they spend tax payer funds, non transparency easier to achieve. Does not measure how people feel from one minute to the next, from one day to the next, from one week to the next let alone annually or in a Happiness Metric Index budget that is introduced to the people of NZ recently.

The Kingdom Of Bhutan and its Happiness Index embraced by the 2019 Labour led government, where Ardern was praised worldwide for her Happiness Index initiative. Bhutan- New Zealand the people face restrictions on freedom of speech, on peaceful assembly. In Bhutan restrictions on domestic and international mobilization and also Human trafficking.

The Happiness Metric Index” And Happiness 15 Minute  Smart Cities. Smart approaches to measuring happiness mean mobilizing an ever increasing array of mobile apps, behavioral data that aims to sense, explain our measurements of happiness. A popular approach for authoritarian government, the Happiness Metric Measurement an approach to move beyond economic growth to ‘communist de-growth’ where Behavioral Economists are highly influential in public policy agenda’s on the world stage.

The Happiness Index of Smart Cities:  Informed by predictive behavioral analytics, wearable emotional sensing, mass surveillance, tracking your mobile phone, where you are, whom you are with, virtual doctors appointments, individuals mapped, measured and managed. Measuring Happiness, redefining observable behavior, monitoring a persons mental aspects. Economists working in ‘Happiness Studies’ in neuroscience, genetic evidence and comparable measures to define what happiness means. The serious limitations, what’s happening within our minds and what’s happening in our personal outside world.

Where people who have mental health issues can report they are happy, but suicide rates are high. New Zealand, Denmark and Finland all have high Suicide rates but Happiness Indexes yet were assessed relatively happy on the World Happiness Report. NZ with the highest Youth Suicide rate in the developed world. Happiness based policy making: Is a vague term that means different things to different people, its impossible to come up with a definition that captures all aspects of happiness and wellbeing for every person. Philosophers studied happiness for thousands of years but have  failed to arrive at a single definition.

The Nature Of Happiness: There is no simple theory about the nature of happiness. Happiness is extremely complex, multi-faceted, multilayered, cannot be reduced to a metric formular. So what do we do, do we call it out for what it is – inaccurate, a lie, corrupt. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the time..

Do we journey down the path of being so called Happiness Metric Index pheasants or do we pursue the ‘Freedom of Choice’. Do we adapt to each of us being quantified, measured or do we embrace our individual identity, preserve our dignity and self worth as unique individual human  beings.?

Measuring Happiness in quantitative metric terms is a disillusionment, this in reality is about re-engineering society, re-engineering peoples behaviors, destroying personal identity, destroying peace and happiness, this is what is being pursued behind the political closed doors of the cesspit in Wellington.

WakeUpNZ

Carol Sakey