When they come for your neighbours, which side of the garden fence will you be sitting on?

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is an Act to affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand, and to affirm New Zealand's commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But does New Zealand really commit to it, or do we just pay lip service?

It's an interesting human experiment, if nothing else, as we watch the rights and freedoms of large numbers of the New Zealand population being slowly stripped away. It seems most days that the vast majority of the population are feeling just fine and dandy about it, but I'm not so sure. 

Many's the time I've wondered to myself "Am I maybe making a mountain out of a molehill in taking a very determined stand against what I'm seeing?"

Within minutes of even allowing such thoughts to take up residence in my head and my heart I feel inclined to give myself a good shake and remind myself that enabling two classes of citizens and having rights that ought to be sacred (and have been for years!) granted only to one but not to the other is both ethically and morally wrong.

It seems I'm not entirely alone in that thinking. A great number (and growing) of vaccinated citizens are now standing beside their unvaccinated colleagues who lost their jobs because of their decision to exercise their right to refuse an experimental medical treatment. (NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 ss10, 11)

Similarly, the right to freedom of movement (s18(1)), and the right to enter New Zealand for citizens (s18(2)) have been clearly limited under the direction of the Minister for the COVID-19 Response.

There is only one justified reason to place a limitation on the rights of New Zealanders, and that is that the rights and freedoms contained in the 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 (s5).

Presuming that we live in a "free and democratic society", it remains only to be evidenced that the current Covid-19 Acts affecting our people are "demonstrably justified". During the period when we were actively trying to prevent the spread of the virus that caused Covid-19, it seemed that indeed it was. But if it is no longer possible to prevent the spread - if the virus has become 'endemic' - is it still justified? Or should those Acts be revoked as no longer fit for purpose?

Given the current state of play, that the Ministry of Health is now advising that vaccination status is no longer the issue but we should instead be thinking in terms of asymptomatic infection, that the infectiousness of individuals is similar whether they are vaccinated or not, and that it is in fact vaccinated individuals who are more likely to be asymptomatic spreaders, it would appear that it's a no-brainer that the two classes, and all legislation enabling the maintenance of such a society, should be abolished. And quickly.

If you, like me, abhor the idea that in the absence of any justifiable reason to do so our Government would continue down this pathway towards a medical apartheid, then you have a decision to make. Which side of history would you prefer to be on? What moral and ethical decision will you make for the sake of justice and fairness for others?

Every citizen at this point needs to decide which side of the fence they are going to picnic on. Sitting on the fence is subscribing to a position of the removal of your neighbour's rights, your colleague's rights - and potentially your own future rights.

Get down off the fence, New Zealand. Delete your apps, refuse to shop where they are needed for access, and give up your hair salons and barbers. You cannot stand in solidarity with the second class of citizens, while you are at the same time enjoying all the benefits of first class.

We call that hypocrisy. And we reserve our right to express our opinions about that!