Thread by @drdeanknight

I think Lady Chambers is quite mistaken about the (so-called diluted) role the Bill of Rights Act has played in the pandemic (on @CheckpointRNZ and @nzherald).

Rather than the government being blasé about human rights and there being an absence of debate etc, the justification calculus has been at the forefront of government decision-making - as section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act demands.

It's possible to care deeply about human rights and also accept that a case has been made out for some rights to be limited in the public good and protection of other rights (rights to health and life etc).

And that's what the courts that have reviewed key measures have ruled -- the government's measures are demonstrably justified, even when judged carefully in human rights terms.

[Reposted due to gremlins.]

And, if you want to get some insight into how govt has sweated — and continues to sweat — risk and rights, look at govt's explanation re decision-making relating to MIQ. Not "set and forget"; rather continual appraisal and re-appraisal of the balance.

https://twitter.com/drdeanknight/status/1492961760336543744?s=20&t=Ua37mIZ_gz3Gtm_kaEDB0Q

[FN allegedly "diluted" is my take on the gist; I'm not sure she used that exact term.]

Remarks on @radionz here: rnz.co.nz/national/progr…

I should also add that the NZ Centre for Public Law and I hosted the Attorney-General for a public address in Dec last year. Amongst other things, he spoke directly about the important role human rights has played in the govt’s pandemic decision-making.

beehive.govt.nz/speech/legal-a…

Video of the address is available here:

And folk might be interested in this view from former Chief Justice McLachlin on the role of human rights and justified limits in times of a pandemic.

theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articl…