The Human Rights Review Tribunal
December 19th, 2009 at 1:40 pm by David FarrarNo Right Turn criticises some of the recent appointments to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
While I don’t endorse his language and descriptions, I do agree with him that the appointments look too politically loaded. Generally National has been much better than Labour in this area, and this is the first set of appointments which look unbalanced. It may be that each individual is qualified, but to have four out of nine members with a political background is not desirable.
The one that puzzles me is Brian Neeson. Brian quit National and actually stood against John Key in 2002. Generally parties don’t have a lot of time for people who quite and break their written word not to stand against the official candidate. So why is National appointing Neeson? It is hardly rewarding a supporter.
Related posts:
- UN Human Rights Reform a farce
- Are property rights a human right?
- US disengages from UN Human Rights Council
- UN Human Rights Council
December 19th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I love the part where he repeats another left-winger’s hateful interpretation of something that guy allegedly read in the newspaper.
Vote:December 19th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Who cares what that repulsive little coward thinks? Even if the charges he levels at the new appointments were credible, they would only add some sorely needed balance.
Political background?? You’re kidding right?? The Race Relations Commissioner is a long time Communist, and almost all of the rest of the Human Rights Commissioners are Progressives following and enforcing the politically correct doctrines of the left.
If National had any gonads, or any understanding of what an exceptionally poisonous organisation this outfit really is, they would be shutting it down not adding to the farce.
If shut down, the HRC would not be missed for one nanosecond by the hard working NZers paying for it with money they would rather spend on their families.
Vote:December 19th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I can only assert what Redbaiter has stated when you have such Commissioners as DeBres and Noonan and consider some of their recent statements it seems obvious that some balance is needed until they can be disposed of. Better still though would be to dispense with the Commissions altogether.
Vote:December 19th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Brian Neeson got a job because John Key felt he owed him something as John took him out of politics when he successfully challenged Neeson.
Vote:December 19th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Well John Key has a lot of time and taxpayer money for Helen Clark and Michael Cullen so why not Brian Neeson. At least Brian Neeson was in the right party. It appears John Key is not.
Vote:December 19th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
NRT bleats about partisan political appointments – suck it up you hypocrite! Why were you not bleating about some of Helyn’s shockers during the last decade…because you supported her partisan appointments. Loser.
Vote:December 20th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Time and taxpayer money for Helen Clark? Say what?
Vote:December 20th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
This isn’t the first lot of politically motivated appointments, what are you talking about David? What about Christine Rankin to the Families Commission? But appointing a homophobe like Brian Neeson is a pretty strange appointment regardless of politics.
Vote:December 21st, 2009 at 2:43 am
It’s clearly a clever ploy – Neeson was an incompetent MP so the best place to put him is an irrelevant organisation.
Is there anyone except serial whingers who would miss this waste of tax dollars?
Vote: