Running a successful internet business is no crime.

I consider Kims push to build a cable directly to the US far more important than roads but I digress, we are or are not denying/granting anything based on his contributions to NZs well being.

Kim has no criminal record as per the “clean slate” granted by Germany.

On the contrary, my quote is indeed true, exactly as it was written.

> “Individuals can and do breach or violate human rights.”

No, that’s still impossible.

> “From “EHRC understanding Human rights” the following is clear about this..”

Let’s start by quoting the opening of that passage:

> “Remember, the Act regulates the relationship between individuals and the state..”

You left that rather relevant part out.

> “But public authorities can use existing laws to ensure that one individual doesn’t abuse the rights of another individual.”

A claim that doesn’t go against my claim regarding violation or breaches of human rights. Your quote either talks about rights described in national law which is something different than human rights, or it’s a not so thought through statement in the first place, which i must agree it isn’t, because it did get you confused..

> “If a woman was violently abused by her partner, she couldn’t sue him for breaching her rights.”

Correct, because he hasn’t violated her human rights. It’s impossible for him to do so because he isn’t the state.

> “However, the police would be responsible for protecting her human rights by using other laws to convict him for domestic violence, and if they knowingly failed to offer adequate protection this could be a breach of her human rights.”

Correct, the police and all authorities is a part of the state, and when they, the state and it’s branches, doesn’t uphold an individual’s human rights, they can be sued for failing to do so.

Nothing in the example that you misunderstood says that the violent man violated, breached or abused any human right. The opening passage of that section however quite clearly stated that the human right regulate the relationship between state and individual, and therefore logically only a state can violate them.

And did you notice how they shifted between using the term human rights, and right alone without the word human in front of it? That alone should have tipped you off.

If there’s anything else that you have misunderstood, please ask for help again.

Not strictly true. Individuals can and do breach or violate human rights.

From “EHRC understanding Human rights” the following is clear about this “… for example, you can’t sue your neighbour for a breach of human rights.
But public authorities can use existing laws to ensure that one
individual doesn’t abuse the rights of another individual. If a woman
was violently abused by her partner, she couldn’t sue him for breaching
her rights. However, the police would be responsible for protecting her
human rights by using other laws to convict him for domestic violence,
and if they knowingly failed to offer adequate protection this could be a
breach of her human rights.”

“Good character” is a subjective requirement, one filled by having a number of employers who testify for you and a clean criminal record. I fail to see how he would be denied NZ citizenship if he was inclined to apply at this stage.

Right now he is a permanent resident of NZ. This is virtually the same as a citizenship except you do not hold a NZ passport.