Is this a fallacy, dodging the issue or obfuscation?

I became involved in a debate over a question based on the following conversation:

* * * * *

CA=Country A and HRA=Human Right Association

Example:

CA: it is now gonna be forbidden in CA for feminist to express their feminism and if we catch one she will pass 2 months in jail.

HRA: You can't do that because you are violating their human right of expressing themselves.

CA: The HRA is not the one leading our Country we got representative carrying about those types of question and in the name of what should feminist have the Right to express themselves ?

Note that in this context feminists are not a threat to the society or institution of Country A.

* * * * *

The person who posted it wants to know if it's a fallacy.

I don't think CA is being honest here. At the very least, I would accuse CA of obfuscation. Moreover, it sounds to me like he's dodging the issue. But could it actually qualify as a fallacy? I see an appeal to authority and a (probably) false claim that government officials are truly qualified or really care about such issues.

Some people think there's nothing wrong with CA's response at all. What's your opinion?

I see no apparent fallacies. If Country A agreed to follow the human rights declaration, the the declaration is clearly against what they plan to do, then there is a problem. This seems much more like a political issue than one of logical fallacies.

The question itself is poorly constructed and relies heavily on the reader reading into what is being asked here.

As Dr. Bo addressed and from what I can make of it the argument is not so much of an error in reasoning, or an inherent deception, but one of
a nation's sovereignty versus the validity of a human rights group to criticize its policies.