From: Arnaud <*****************>
To: enquiries@igis.govt.nz
Subject: False equivalence from Cherly Gwyn's report
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:45:50 +1300

Hello,

I wish to adivse Ms Gwyn of an error in her report of November 25 concerning a public interest defamation tort relating to Phil Goff. Since I'm arguing in the public interest it would be appropriate to notify publicly, but I would first like to extend an invitation to a legal cure, with Ms Gwyn as agent.

The cure relates to the root cause or causes of the fallacy which is expressed in her report through the following false equivalence:

"2. Under section 11(1)(b)(i) of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996
(IGIS Act) I have jurisdiction to inquire into a complaint by a New Zealand person…"

Although Ms Gwyn, not Ms Turei, was responsible for the motion, the reference to the legislation implies that it is relevent to the argument for jurisdiction regarding an inquiry into issues of public interest.

The false equivalence in the argument for jurisdiction is that persons and people are not equivalent terms, and yet they are treated as if they were equivalent. Also, from paragraph 5:

"5. Jurisdiction for the inquiry is contained in s 11 of the IGIS Act."

The right of inguiry into issues of public interest that is required for jurisdiction concerning those issues does not originate in legislation. By assuming jurisdiction Ms Gywn has assumed pre-eminince in a specific issue of public interest. This affects the legitimacy of an embargo against disclosure because of the assumption of universal jurisdiction where the jurisdiction is in fact only personal.

Naturally I will interpret a lack of reponse as no contest from the state.



Arnaud Wylie.