Letter to the politicians about the covid scam

Dear Sir, Madam;

Thank you for your automated reply. I duly note the observations made regarding my residence, However assumptions as you are well aware can be misleading. Our family, myself included were instrumental in Ruth Dysons re-election. By standing as a sacrificial candidate in the mid nineties in order to take votes away from the incumbent candidate David Carter.  

Regarding your position on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill Government Bill 246—1.  I must remind you of my concerns;
Please clarify and let me know if I continue to have human rights under Common Law, the NZ Bill of Rights, the Nuremburg Code and The NZ Health and Disability Commission Act and He Wakapuntanga o rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni, as it appears the Bill contradicts many rights listed below. Does your government believe that it can take my and my family’s rights away by passing this legislation?
14. Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
15. Manifestation of religion and belief
Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.
16. Freedom of peaceful assembly
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
17. Freedom of association
Everyone has the right to freedom of association.
18. Freedom of movement
(1) Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.
I attach a copy of New Zealands bill of Rights as substantiation  of my concerns; http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html
I would politely suggest that the extended period of confinement would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Which again it covered in the Bill of rights Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment;
    • Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.
Regarding the enforcement of said bill.  I refer you to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill Government Bill 246—1 Explanatory note;
Enforcement
As with the orders made under the Health Act 1956, non-compliance with orders provided for in the Bill may result in imprisonment or a fine on conviction. A mental element (for example, the person acted intentionally) has been included in these offenses to reflect the severity of conviction as a penalty. To further support the enforcement of health measures in the orders and to promote greater compliance, infringement offenses have been added for non-compliance with orders. Businesses that do not comply with orders (for example, by not ensuring physical distance requirements are met by customers and staff) can be ordered to close for up to 24 hours. The policy objective underpinning these enforcement measures is to enable a graduated response approach to offending.
To enable enforcement of the measures in orders, the Police are given a power to enter premises, including private dwelling-houses and marae, without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered there in contravention of an order and entry is necessary for the purpose of giving people a direction to comply with the order (for example, giving an order to disperse). Enforcement officers can enter without a warrant any premises other than private dwelling-houses and marae if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is failing to comply with any aspect of an order.

Now please compare this with the “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State” (German: Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat) issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg on the advice of Chancellor Adolf Hitler on 28 February 1933
Quote “On the basis of Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich, the following is ordered in defense against Communist state-endangering acts of violence:     Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom, freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed”.

Are you fully aware of the precedent you are supporting?

If you are confident that the medical evidence is substantive enough for these Draconian measures to be enacted. Could you provide evidence to support your position. Evidence such as the following;

The Virus isolation/purification test.  Have New Zealand medical specialists isolated the virus or are they basing their decisions on flawed RNA results?
   
Secondly,  clarification of the United kingdoms Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government, Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) at the Department of Health and Social Care and Head of the National Institute for Health Research stance on the Covid 19. Where He clearly states the virus is not serious for the majority of people. I attach the daily briefing at the time stamp as testament;   https://youtu.be/aI1cHvKxYA4?t=2741

I close by reminding you of Shakespeare character contemplating over the rise of Caesar “The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power.”

You know the actions you are underpinning are wrong.

In best Regards;

Stephen Watson.
Christchurch,