It is completely specious and utterly wrong to talk of his "rights" like this, in the context of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Not that he gives a monkey, but in case some want to know how the NZBORA operates, here's a simple, quick lesson.
In assessing whether something is contrary to the Bill of Rights there is a two stage process. The first is to determine whether the act by the police (of removing the protestors from Aotea Square) is contrary to their freedom of expression and their right to peaceful assembly; and then the second is to consider whether this breach of their freedom and "rights" is nonetheless sanctioned by section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act.
Let's presume it is contrary. Because by the act of removal, they cannot "protest" any longer.
Section 5 of the NZBORA then comes into play. It says:
Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.So Glen's "rights" and "freedoms" are limited, not exhaustive, but only if the act of removal can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Only if this question is answered "no", (i.e. cannot be demonstrably justified) is the act of removing them invalidated, and their rights and freedoms breached.
Section 5 is subject to section 4. Section 4 is a savings provision. It basically says no law is revoked, repealed or invalidated simply because it's inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. So all laws in place for the police to enable removal of the protestors survive. That's pretty much the Joker to Glen's right bower.
But one still needs to go on and ask this question: Is it demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society for the police to enforce a court order removing vagabonds from a public space that they have ruined and have used to the exclusion of other citizens for about 90 days, even if said vagabonds are exercising their "rights and freedoms"?
If you think the answer to that is "yes", then the vagabonds go. If you think "no", then they stay. But regardless, it is not as simple as just saying "our rights have been breached, how can this happen"!
The law allows it to happen. Now just go and be done with. Please.