Open letter to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith

Justice minister Paul Goldsmith. Source: National Party.

Paul Goldsmith

Minister of Justice

P.Goldsmith@ministers.govt.nz

OPEN LETTER

Dear Mr Goldsmith

I’m writing to complain about my treatment, and the treatment of Helen Joyce, a former finance editor and international editor at The Economist, at the hands of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT).

I’m told that the HRRT doesn’t fall within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner so I know of no other person with any authority that I can complain to.

I do find it extraordinary that there is apparently no impartial oversight of the human rights matters decided by the HRRT. Surely, the government should address this gap?

My first complaint is the HRRT’s refusal to acknowledge me as a journalist, despite my more than 40-year career, which has included coverage of many civil court proceedings both in New Zealand and in Sydney.

No court or tribunal has ever previously questioned my status as a journalist or refused to recognise me as such.

HRRT chair Sarah Eyre noted in open court on Monday, Oct 6 that her panel had spent all of 12 minutes in making its decision to refuse to recognize me as a journalist.

This demonstrates it was hardly a considered decision.

While the HRRT is a civil court and the proceeding I wished to cover was a civil matter, the HRRT used section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 as its grounds for its refusal to recognise me.

The HRRT used the same inappropriate section to exclude Joyce.

Even if it had been appropriate to apply a criminal statute to a civil proceeding, the HRRT failed to use part (b) which states that a court may recognise “any other person reporting on the proceedings with the permission of the court” as a journalist.

The only questions the registrar asked me were my contact details, which I provided, and whether I belonged to the Media Council (the statute actually refers to the defunct Press Council).

I had investigated joining the Media Council but then realized I could not in good faith agree to abide by its statement of principles which is here: https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/principles/.

This says that the council “endorses the principles and spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi and Bill of Rights Act.”

The treaty is simply not relevant to journalistic ethics.

Further, since the principles and spirit of the treaty are not written down anywhere or agreed upon, I can’t understand how anyone of good faith could sign up to this “principle.”

Principle 7 refers to discrimination and diversity – while the stated principle is general, I was also aware of how the council had ruled against Radio New Zealand’s Ruth Hill on her reporting on a young girl who had died of starvation while supposedly under state care – the Media Council decision is here: https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/rulings/parker-et-al-against-radio-new-zealand/

Essentially, the complaints, which were upheld, amounted to Hill “misgendering” a biological girl by using the pseudonym Vanessa and using female pronouns, which was in accordance with the wishes of the girl’s parents.

Since I believe it is fact that humans cannot change sex and that journalists should report facts, not lie to indulge someone’s unsubstantiated and unverifiable feelings about which sex they are, there is no way I would willingly join an organisation capable of making such a ruling.

These “principles” and their application go far beyond journalistic ethics – of which I am a staunch defender – and into the realm of enforcing ideological positions and attempting to compel journalists into pretending to accept ideological beliefs as facts in defiance of actual biological facts.

This is the antithesis of the ethics that should guide journalists.

Adhering to such “principles” should never be a professional requirement and the government needs to act to remove requirements to belong to such an organisation from legislation such as the Criminal Procedure Act.

The HRRT exclusions of myself and Joyce raise a much broader issue: from time to time, international journalists, as well as those living locally who are employed by international organisations, such as Reuters, Bloomberg and Dow Jones can and do cover NZ court proceedings.

None of these organisations are likely to be willing to join organisations such as the Media Council.

It is against the principles of open justice that courts should be allowed to exclude such journalists.

The refusal to recognise such a distinguished journalist as Helen Joyce makes New Zealand and its legal system internationally ridiculous.

I note that the HRRT made no mention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or whether it should have been giving weight to sections 13 and 14, which deal with freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression.

It is also relevant that the HRRT case I wished to cover was directly related to whether humans can change sex and I believe the HRRT has made it blindingly obvious that it has been captured by trans ideology.

The HRRT’s decision to refuse to recognise me as the journalist that I am followed my column on the tribunal’s suppression order.
I had openly attended the online appeal hearing, clearly identifying myself, and found its grounds for suppression ridiculous. My column is here: https://justthebusinessjennyruth.substack.com/p/can-reporting-what-a-witness-says.

It is obvious to me that the HRRT didn’t like my criticism and that its decision to refuse to recognise me as a journalist was based on that rather than any substantive consideration of my status or career.

I would note that the HRRT declined to allow the Free Speech Union to intervene on the grounds that the tribunal was satisfied that the FSU “does not have an interest in the proceeding greater than the public generally.”

If all courts applied this yardstick, no organisations of FSU’s nature would ever be allowed to intervene in any proceeding.

The HRRT’s decision flies in the face of the principle of open justice and the long tradition of the media questioning and criticising judicial decisions.

It also reinforces the wholly undesirable impression that the HRRT has been ideologically captured by trans ideology.

The HRRT further demonstrated its adherence to this ideology in a Jan 16, 2024 minute which directed that: “The stated genders and preferred pronouns of all individuals before the Tribunal in this proceeding are to be used by anyone (including the parties, witnesses and counsel) referring to those individuals in the course of this proceeding.”

This is compelling those who know men cannot become women or vice versa to in effect lie and pretend such sex changes are possible.

The HRRT reiterated this direction in a minute on Sept 1 after the defendant, Wellington Pride, had sought a ruling forbidding the use of terms such as “trans-identifying man,” which Wellington Pride said was offensive.

The Sept 1 minute did not expressly forbid the use of this term but said: “It is accepted by the Tribunal that misgenerdering trans people is offensive.”

In other words, the HRRT was forbidding the use of factual language.

I hope you agree that the HRRT’s actions need to be addressed by parliament.

Yours sincerely

Jenny Ruth

Note: I have published three other columns on the HRRT proceeding which can be viewed here:

While the HRRT chair Sarah Eyre ruled that I was in contempt of court in publishing the last column listed here, and that she would refer the matter to the police, I have heard nothing more from either the HRRT or the police.