Golriz Ghahraman is a defender of the human rights of genocidal maniacs

It is often said in politics that it isn’t the lie that gets you in trouble, but the coverup.

In the case of Golriz Ghahraman the coverup happened first and now it is being exposed.

It seems that the great defender of human rights is actually the defender of the human rights of genocidal maniacs and is also an a genocide denier having written a paper defending the Hutu massacre of Tutsi in Rwanda.

It all started with an article in the NZ Herald that was all gushy about this human rights advocate and now MP.

In 2008 I?d been working in New Zealand as a junior barrister for two and a half years. The next logical step would have been to go out on my own, but I got accepted to do a masters degree at Oxford. While I was waiting to fly to England,?I met a defence lawyer working for the?Rwanda?Tribunal.?He said: ?You should come over, we need a lawyer at the coalface.? I?d gone into law in the first place to do human rights law.

I spent about three months as an intern then went to The Hague on a consultancy at the Yugoslavia Tribunal, then was offered a job as a lawyer for the Rwanda Tribunal.

That is rather economical with the truth. PhilQuin, who has worked in Rwanda too points out that?Ghahraman in fact volunteered to defend genocidal maniacs.


I’m not sure I am aware of any defence lawyer who defended NAZI war criminals at Nuremberg claiming that they did the job because of their long-held support for anti-Semitism. Which is the equivalent of what?Ghahraman is claiming.

On her Green website page, she clearly is obfuscating her real role in defending genocidal maniacs.

Her studies at Oxford, and work as a lawyer for the United Nations and in New Zealand, have focused on enforcing human rights and holding governments to account. Golriz has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power, and?restoring?communities after war and human rights atrocities, particularly empowering women engaged in peace and justice initiatives.

That makes it sounds like she was prosecuting, when in fact she was defending the perpetrators of the crimes. Worse than that she was also on the defence teams for Yugoslavian war criminals.


So, not just Rwanda genocidal maniacs but also Yugoslav mass murderers as well.

She went further in obfuscating her role with a fawning Guardian article:

It was in this South Pacific melting pot, says Ghahraman, that she acquired the confidence to study human rights law at Oxford University, and, later, to stand up in court?representing the UN in tribunals prosecuting some of the world?s worst war criminals, including perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.

Again, she is lying by omission of key details and the way she portrayed it is made to look like she was prosecuting mass murderers in Rwanda when in fact she was defending them. To make matters worse she claimed to have been underfunded?in the Herald article:

And even with the UN, defence lawyers didn?t have as many resources as the other side. To me it?s important to have that fair process. No matter how guilty someone looks, guilt needs to be established. But the defence team didn?t get paper for the photocopiers ? it was like even the UN didn?t really believe in it.

From back here, having worked in court, I know the defence gets about half the resources of the prosecution. That?s really frightening ? there?s definitely demographics involved.

That is another lie exposed by Phil Quin.


This is looking really rather shabby. This is a Green MP who has portrayed herself as a champion of human rights but appears to be an apologist and defender of mass murder and genocide, at least in the Rwandan conflict and possibly in the Yugoslavian conflict.

She can’t claim she was just an intern doing her job, she volunteered for the position but went further co-authoring a paper that is basically genocide denial.


One of the people she defended was positively awful.


On her Facebook page in 2008, she posted photos of the defence team.

source FB

source FB

source FB

If she tries to say she wasn’t proud of her time there defending mass murderers then she has a funny way of showing it.

With so much smoke, and a great deal of unsavoury history defending scumbags, killers, and mass murderers one can’t help but agree with Phil Quin:



There will be more to come on this. Plus I am reliably informed that there are serious questions over her sanitised history of her early life in Iran.

Green party sources are saying that?Ghahraman was warned about her blabbiness and her glossing over of her history for months. Now, because of a couple of boastful articles at the Guardian and the NZ Herald her tenure as an MP is rather tenuous at the moment.

The Green party like to portray themselves as better than anyone else…is defending mass murderers and genocide better than being a former tobacco lobbyist?

If it is morally reprehensible for a wife-beater like Tony Veitch to ever appear on television again then surely it is reprehensible for a defender of mass murderers to be an MP.

If it is morally reprehensible for former tobacco lobbyists to be an MP, like Chris Bishop and Todd Barclay, as claimed often by those guardians of moral turpitude known as The Green party then surely it is morally reprehensible for defenders of genocidal mass murders to be sworn into office as MPs?

She must go.


-NZ Herald, Guardian, Phil Quin, research by Sally