Human Rights Commission

Press, 31 March 1980, Page 20

Human Rights Commission

Sir, — The Human Rights Commission’s prosecution of Mr Eric Sides for insisting that prospective employees be Christians is nothing short of religious persecution. If a man going about his lawful business is not able to express his preference to employ a person of the same religious beliefs as his own, then it can no longer be said that New Zealand enjoys religious freedom. Any law which prevents a person associating with, employing or doing business with those people he freely chooses, is denying thb fundamental freedom of citizens not to have the State tell them how to run their lives. It is only a step from being told whom you must employ to being told whom you must not employ. The Human Rights Commission Act, in seeking to promote the interests of one section of the community, simultaneously denies the freedoms of others. It should be re* pealed. — Yours, etc., M. VINEY. March 29, 1980. ■ Sir, — New Zealanders, and in particular, one garage proprietor in Christchurch, must be disturbed by the latest statement by. the Human Rights Commission. An employer is entitled to hire whom he chooses, and ‘ if he wants a Christian, he can employ one. The term Christian, means not only one who lives according to Cnrist’s teaching, but one who has been baptised and admitted by way of confirmation, to the fellowship of the Lord’s table, undertaking to worship regularly < and support and serve the Church; recognising God as our ■ heavenly Father, and Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Lord. What use is a Human Rights Commission which is full of double standards, and an example of bureaucracy gone mad, if the Commission cannot recognise the rights of a garage proprietor? — Yours, etc., LESLEY REID, Tauranga. March 27, 1980. Expressway Sir, — Your editorial today confirms the growing conviction among citizens that in the eyes of planners and executives the person, his home and his property are most readily expendable and if they stand in the way of progress, so-called. You yourself belittle the values of an historic area such as Avonside Drive if it becomes an obstacle in the path of an expressway. Why should this unique piece of Christchurch with its uplifted terrain and its charm in an otherwise flat landscape be less worthy of preservation than an historic building? The Town Clerk would com* fort affected residents with an assurance that the plan may not be implemented for years. Why not then lift the designation that destroys their security? The Chief Traffic Engineer states the expressway is required to transport liquefied petroleum gas. How does he reconcile this with Mr Gray’s statement when L.P.G. is needed at once? The public

needs to know also why this dangerous fuelcan be carried only by road in New Zealand. — Yours, etc., V. F. JOBBERNS, March 28, 1980.