Goodbye Fairfax and NZME – no loss now…

Goodbye Fairfax and NZME – no loss at all…

https://kapitiindependentnews.net.nz/goodbye-nelson-mail/

Apparently, around the country, I gather, from reaction to my recent letter of farewell to the Nelson Mail, individuals who’ve also cancelled subscriptions to Stuff newspapers are being contacted by editorial staff asking them why.

They can’t be serious, can they?  It should be more than obvious to even the apparently severely challenged new breed of editorialists why the retreat from their second-rate publications is gathering speed.

My long attempt to persuade our local editor to stop suppressing letters which either she or the letters editor found displeasing recently came to an end. To know of fine, highly qualified correspondents continually denied the right to comment – particularly in relation to challenging activist propaganda and quite wrong assertions  – meant I could no longer support a paper so now essentially biased and basically thoroughly dumbed down.

Enter the Kapiti Independent News – with its increasingly enthusiastic readership. It presents a very good example of the way forward for the small, independent community newspapers now offering themselves as weeklies to step in and attract the interest of readers.

With so many now accessing the web for national and overseas news, local journals that will concentrate on two vital areas  – (the much-needed scrutinising of local council activities , and providing a forum for the letters to the editor – the two areas that most concern local people) –  will come into their own. If these can manage to remain independent, then there is every chance they will morph into a genuine, worthwhile replacement to their community than what were once far more worthwhile publications.

 

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

“Disharmonious speech” ! Wake up NZ – This is shocking…

 

 “Disharmonious speech” ! Wake up NZ – This is shocking  

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings/audio/is-freedom-of-speech-under-threat/#ath

Political commentator Lindsay Perigo has told Chris Lynch he is concerned freedom of speech is under threat in New Zealand from the Human Rights Commission wanting to prevent “disharmonious speech” directed towards ethnic minority groups in New Zealand.

Yes, we are all busy, but it’s well worth taking the time to listen to this interview. It was this same highly experienced media commentator who originally raised the alarm over the “brain dead” directions of our state-sponsored television and broadcasting media.

This is now equalled by the descent of  Fairfax New Zealand  (a subsidiary of Australia’s Fairfax Media newspapers)  and New Zealand Media & Entertainment (owned by Sydney-based APN News & Media and the Australian Radio Network) into the obligingly dumbed-down, PC, daily fare dished up to this country. There never was a better time to abandon subscriptions and to support proudly independent local newspapers.

Critical analysis of what we’re being fed through the media is only too rare, which is why the Perigo interview is so very important. For there is no question that we New Zealanders are in deep trouble with now state-sponsored cultural bullying receiving useful platforms in the only-too compliant mass media.

It is also receiving support even in areas which have absolutely no business in becoming politically active – and radicalised.  The police hierarchy, for example, is now causing concern by its inappropriate intrusion into areas relating to policy-making – a move which will rightly concern many of its own rank and file.

Former Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy, already viewed by many as inappropriately partisan in her role, increased concern with her apparent wish to involve the police in policy decisions  – or pressuring the government to do. And now, a New Zealand Herald correspondent has pointed out that the Acting Race Relations Conciliator, Paula Tesoriero, a former New Zealand Paralympics racing cyclist, has made the mistake of attempting to equate freedom of speech with physical safety…in order to give legitimacy to restricting this freedom. This is very poor thinking from her indeed.

 This Herald correspondent commented on Tesoriero’s failure to make the distinction between words and actions – a now fashionable justification for those seeking to muzzle freedom of expression. He’s right in stating that “Legislation already protects the right to physical safety- and words are not actions.” Moreover, as he points out “The commission seeks new legislation to sanction ‘hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religious and beliefs of minority communities.’ Who will define these terms, he asks, and why would they apply only to speech directed at minority communities?’

Why indeed? But I think we all know the answer to this, given the now constant attack on mainstream New Zealanders, who are not being consulted by our government on what they feel as the best directions for our country.

Tesoriero has now denied that this is the case – but the evidence is against her.  The Summary of Recommendations by our far from impartial Race Relations Commission to the United Nations is worth checking out– see 2(a) and (b)  – https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/8215/0171/9491/Appendix_to_NZHRC_CERD_Submission_2017_-_Summary_of_Recommendations.pdf

Not only does it inexcusably continue to advance the quite wrong claim of a ”partnership” between Maori and the Crown, it specifically urges the government  to “Review the adequacy of current legislation in addressing and sanctioning hate speech and incitement to racial disharmony, including hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities.”

In fact, reading this document right through leaves little doubt in the reader’s mind that it is basically a highly activist piece of work, also pressuring the government to implement the recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal – a body which has already been not only utterly partisan, but even arguably corrupt in its modus operandi. (See page 160 in my book “The 100 Days  – Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians – “The case for abolishing the highly damaging Waitangi  Tribunal and questioning its highly dubious, activist record.”

We’ve got to the stage in this country where the European-descended majority is now basically under constant attack, with special rights and privileges directed not only at today’s part-Maori but at other ethnic minorities which can be used as a tool for this purpose. And of course, when one particular sector of the community gains special rights, special privileges, special concessions…it is always at the cost to all others.

The weasel word of diversity has become especially useful when wielded to silence criticism from New Zealanders rightly concerned that the democratic aim of equal rights for all, regardless of colour, race, gender and creed to bring people together as one – is now being deliberately undermined.

Even given this aim of equality under the law for all New Zealanders, we need to also remember the American political scientist Sam Huntingdon’s reminder about cultures in conflict. Best known for his 1993 theory, “the Clash of civilisations”-  of  a new post-Cold  War new world order – he argued that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures, and that Islam extremism would become the biggest threat to world peace. Given the problems that the rise of militant Islam is now causing throughout Europe, in Britain and even close to us, in Australia, it can be argued that it would be irresponsible of our government to allow unrestricted Muslim immigration to our own country. Moreover, it would be inexcusable if even opening this relevant issue up for debate will bring accusations of “disharmonious speech” directed against concerned New Zealanders.

The summary of the Race Relation Commission’s recommendations to the United Nations should be torn up. It is basically a divisive and damaging document – and gives credence to those who argue that the commission itself should be abolished.

Susan Devoy had come to be viewed by many as naïve in her seeming lack of awareness that the United Nations is now a highly suspect organisation essentially antagonistic to the West, with a basically One World, repressive agenda aimed at bringing down democracies. Devoy did not seem to realise that her loyalty should be to New Zealanders at large – not to this leftist organisation whose destructive diktats should be opposed – not endorsed.  The question that should be asked is – who authorised her policy stands there on our behalf?

The situation is getting worse, not better, with this new move to threaten or criminalise New Zealanders by proposed new legislation ridiculously described as “disharmonious speech”. Common sense alone, which today seems extraordinarily lacking among government appointees, points to the fact that a horse and cart, metaphorically speaking, can be driven through this definition. And all the puffery now forthcoming – to hastily assure us that such legislation would only be invoked in extreme cases – should be treated with the derision it deserves.  Bad laws are bad laws – and what is proposed is very bad law indeed. 

It is in essence nothing other than a giant step towards the overwhelmingly repressive legislation with which those unfortunate enough  to live in the former USSR, in Nazi Germany, in North Korea today – or in any other  oppressive dictatorships  – were, and are, only too familiar. 

The hour is now very late for New Zealanders to wake up – or we are going to lose this country.  We all know that the tentacles of the State are reaching more and more over us all, not only with all the increasing compliance edicts and petty regulations,  but with the utterly inappropriate ethnic superiority, anti-Christian, anti-European onslaught that has targeted all our institutions. The universities, the teacher training facilities, the nursing and medical curricula –  and, among the most pernicious, the Ministry of Education, imposing its costly and radicalised agenda on our schools  in a blatant power grab for the minds of  our children – are all now contributing. 

 The ominous and loaded phrase “hate speech” was bad enough. But now, under a basically socialist government, and an agenda-driven Prime Minister who likes to use the word “Comrades” – while well aware of its Communist cloaking – we are heading and more and more towards the reality of a police state. 

A recent excellent article in the Spectator Australia by political science student Tom Grein should be compulsory reading for all our naive and incompetent politicians. It is the latter, whose knuckling under to the bullying of the Marxist cultural movement white-anting our society (in the name of ethnic diversity), who are costing us so dearly. It is our politicians  who constantly inflict on the country, without New Zealanders’ consent, the flawed, ill-thought legislation with which we have become only too familiar. 

Noting that we have lost our way, Grein states,” I’m talking of course about the unfettered ability of the individual to express their (sic) opinion without fear of violence or intimidation, otherwise known as free speech…

“I propose this is an open question to those that demand speech codes. 

  “Quo warranto? The oldest question in the book asks, By what right do you have to decide what I can and cannot hear?

“A de facto Islamic blasphemy law is already in place – everyone knows full well what the consequences of caricaturing ‘the prophet’ are. The Rushdie affair and the Danish cartoons Charlie Hebdo… You had your own protests in this fine city of Sydney a few years back which saw young Muslims carrying signs saying ‘Behead all those who insult the Prophet’. If you had told me before I read up on these problems that people were being killed in Western nations for caricaturing a prophet, I would have asked ‘When did the Inquisition return?  These sickly developments are a threat not only to free speech, but to everything we can sensibly call civilisation, and   must be meet head-on… 

“ It pained me to read about the attempted prohibition of the Catholic Union at Balliol College, Oxford…This specific targeting of Christians has become an all too common theme on university campuses as we saw a few months back with the harassment of students on this campus,  the University of Sydney,  over their opposition to same-sex marriage…Such incidents  represent the pointy end of a ‘progressive’ culture that has swept through the institutions of Australian society over the past decade or so,  which seeks to make redundant the history of this nation and reshape it along a revisionist ideology of guilt, shame, and self-flagellation”.   

New Zealanders will recognise exactly the same sort of reinvention of our history, the deliberate encouragement of a culture of special “entitlement” for some.  The agenda underpinning this here is just as dangerous and as corrupt.  

Grein concludes, with an unusual source as a recommendation. “I offer this challenge as a pragmatic way forward {that]  – we return to first principles in understanding the necessity of free speech… I suggest the letters of Rosa Luxemburg who most eloquently wrote, ‘Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.’  

“From this position we must inculcate a culture that understands the significance of free speech and its place as the bedrock which all other freedoms lie upon…” 

He concludes with Oscar Wilde’s reminder that ‘He who does not think for himself does not think at all.’ 

To have a police force in the position of laying charges against individuals brave enough to challenge the damaging, politically correct orthodoxies of the day would be unacceptable –  incredible and  utterly dismaying to those New Zealanders who fought for our democratic freedoms. 

 If we do not correspondingly fight, we will not just have let them down – we will have lost our country. 

*

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

 

Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media /police activism.

Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media and police activism.

 In the gossip circles of a basically close-knit mainstream media, it was reported some time back that unpleasant rumours were swirling about the Prime Minister’s partner. It was called “an unprecedented assault of baseless rumour and false innuendo.” Toxic gossip is not new in these circles. Who can forget the tragic case of the beautiful Charlotte Dawson, a media celebrity in New Zealand which she fled for Australia later, saying that she was “savaged” as a celebrity living in this country? “New Zealand is small and nasty and vindictive. It’s a tiny little village…a tiny country at the end of the year,” she said. Her death by suicide shocked so many – as it should have.

The relevant question is, was she right? Who would deny that the political scene is a toxic one with the jostling for power and ambition underpinning many of the rumours that surface – very often never reaching the public at large, but gaining currency in the media in-groups. The latter have now become equally as little respected – so much so that politicians and the mass media are near the bottom of the least-trusted occupations.  This is tough on those journalists who do try to write with integrity against the tide of the times, including some well worth respect. That they are apparently now in a minority makes it harder for them.

No doubt the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford will have a tough road ahead – even disregarding the media rumour mill. New Zealanders will wish her well, with the imminent arrival of her baby. However, paralleling the usual corresponding euphoria which surrounds any “progressive” celebrities, many New Zealanders have been troubled by Arden’s decision to prioritise her own career over what they see as the best interests of a baby…whose primary caregiver, for very good reason, has traditionally been regarded as its mother. By no means isolated comment also maintains she should have let the country know, before the election, that she was pregnant.

However, there is little doubt that Labour’s strategists would have known that if the country knew before the election that its leader was carrying a baby, many would have been concerned – wondering if a vote for her, in such a demanding job, was in the best interests of the child – let alone for the Prime Minister herself.

We cannot but be aware that many solo mothers have a far more demanding life than those with a husband to support them. Where a deliberate decision has been made for someone in Jacinda Arden’s position to not marry the father of her child, questions are asked. The liberal views of so many self-congratulatory but under-informed media are by no means, as so many journalists seem to take for granted, reflected back by the far more conservative country at large. Memories are surfacing of the younger political Ardern, steeped deep in socialist doctrine, choosing to use the word Comrade…as well as of socialists’ contempt for the family unit, regarding marriage contemptuously as a ”bourgeois” practice. But evidence overwhelmingly points to the presence of married parents, a mother and father, as in the best interests of the child.

Labour is very much a minority government, attracting only 37% of the vote.  It cannot claim to have a mandate for some of the ill-thought directions on which it has now embarked, including the foolish clampdown on any further gas and oil exploration – moving into typical ideologically-motivated, deep Green territory.  Disgracefully, vitally important decisions are being made behind the scenes by the coalition’s party hierarchy without even Cabinet involvement!  Buying lock stock and barrel into the now massively discredited global warming theory is costing the country hugely in economic terms. Little wonder there is rising concern about its decision-making.

The media reporting which has so obligingly avoided any of these issues of concern out in the wider community has been interesting.  Long-time journalist Barry Soper describes Clarke Gayford  “as being in the social pages long before he’d ever hooked up with Ardern – “he was a man about town.” It’s a curious, almost Edwardian description, whose meaning is not clear. But it does highlight the fact that Mr Gayford, handed the role of primary caregiver for their child, is being asked to make a considerable sacrifice, very much limiting his career and social activities – as any mother in the same position could tell him. And how demanding a role it will be for Ms Ardern, juggling her initial few weeks away from Parliament while expecting to be in constant touch with what is happening. The question still stands, whether this demanding scenario is likely to be in the best interests of the baby – let alone the mother, in those very early days.

Interesting, too, is Barry Soper’s casual mention of the fact that he texted Ardern, outlining the rumours, suggesting she or her partner should address them, and offering them a media platform to do it. His comment that, “The only reply came from her press secretary, insisting that the rumours were false and she wouldn’t be commenting on them” sounded almost miffed – as if he was expecting the Prime Minister to be personally responding to him.

This is an interesting point, because I recall journalist friends taking for granted the fact that they had Prime Minister Helen Clark’s cellphone number and could reach her for direct comment. Reportedly this worked two ways – Clark could leak to chosen media statements she wished to go further. However, whether the preferential, two-way access of selected media to the leader of the country is appropriate is another issue.

This political journalist did make one very valid point when he said that it was a mistake for Police Superintendent Mike Bush to become involved by approving the statement denying that Gayford had been the subject of a police enquiry, and saying he’d never been charged in relation to any matter.  In Soper’s words, “This simply stokes the rumour mill, and opens up the suggestion that the police have become politicised. It is unprecedented for the cops to become involved in what are unsubstantiated rumours. The question’s already been asked: Who requested the Police Commissioner’s involvement?”

Who indeed?

However, it’s over late in the day to wonder whether or not the police have become politicised and partisan in their activities when we have evidence this is already the case. Equally, we have evidence that mainstream media, with now strong liberal Left leanings, are not only highly selective when publishing what takes their fancy, but now routinely suppress letters to the editor from correspondents when the content challenges their thinking – and their bias.

I’m waiting still for a reply from the Press Council – now many weeks overdue, which this august body has not yet even acknowledged receiving – even though it promises receipt of a formal complaint within two days. A follow-up enquiry has also been ignored.  As I am familiar with two or three of the names on this council, I am not holding my breath in expectation of the response to which it is supposedly publicly committed.  However, if my third enquiry continues to be ignored, then it will be time to check to whom the Press Council itself is answerable.

The are serious issues, questions of accountability, and the suppression by the Nelson Mail of the letters below some weeks back – and a follow-up enquiry made to this newspaper – is an important matter  – because the content of these letters involves what Barry Soper is questioning  –  an arguably inappropriate police involvement in a highly politicised situation. Given the Fairfax media’s now quite blatant practice of featuring editorials and opinion pieces which allow no genuine consideration of those radicalised issues of the day which attack family values – and of refusing to publish letters legitimately expressing genuine concern, it is no wonder its newspapers are closing down all over the country.

“Dear Editor  “For the police to publicly favour the “lesbian, gay, transgender, queer, intersex and questioning” movement now becoming confrontational and aggressive is quite shocking. Those warring with the biological fact of being born male are actively targeting and recruiting vulnerable children in schools, while demanding to share women’s and children’s toilets.

“Using the weasel excuse of “discrimination”, children are being prescribed pernicious “sex education” programmes detailing as perfectly acceptable what many consider abnormal – with the word “normal” now ridiculously regarded as “hate speech”.  “

Under the banner of that other weasel word, “diversity”, police marched in the Auckland Pride campaign with rainbow colours on a police car. Individuals’ free choice must always be respected. But Police Commissioner Mike Bush’s partisan policy stance, offering recruitment support, is inappropriate and unacceptable. When have the police ever marched in a parade supporting Christian values, or any other of those core values underpinning our society?

“Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson’s courageous confrontation of this destructive counterculture war, and of the moral relativism now flooding the West, is attracting capacity crowds. Commissioner Bush should reflect on the fact that among the loudest support from Jordan’s young audiences is for his appeal for the sanctity of marriage, and child-rearing.”

Although this letter makes important points –they are not ones which the majority of today’s journalists wish to hear. The Editor of the Nelson Mail is apparently no exception. Churchill’s very important reminder to “Never, ever, ever quit,” is one that too many, deeply concerned about what is happening to New Zealand, seem to have forgotten.  Yet it is the key to winning back this country.

So I wrote again as below…although I by no means support the National Party – nor any political party for that matter, given the accumulative damage they have all caused to this country. Only by working toward what the clever Swiss have achieved, control of our politicians (www.100days.co.nz) so that New Zealanders themselves can make the decisions about our directions ahead, will we be able to mount an effective challenge to being ruled by today’s politburo. However, after a typically unbalanced editorial quite common now for this newspaper, I felt it was not good enough to walk away.  Hence this follow-up.

“Dear Editor

“The Nelson Mail’s increasingly “liberal” editorials apparently take for granted the majority of the community feels the same. For example, you noted the new leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges, voted against same-sex marriage and opposes euthanasia. You reported he goes to church and his father was a Baptist Minister  – (are we meant to recoil with horror?) – stating this puts him not only at odds with “the liberal faction”, but “potentially the momentum of popular opinion in this country and around the world”.

”It’s a leap too far. You offer no sound evidence to substantiate such an extravagant claim. Obviously the unpleasant targeting of those concerned about the worrying directions of the day – (particularly families and parents) – deters much feedback. So does the now common, bullying tactic of calling “homophobic” those who question abandoning the values so long stabilising our society.  Many will not agree with the partisan stance inappropriately shown by the police hierarchy marching in the LGBTQIA parade in Auckland – nor with schools now offering programmes which disturb many children, confusing them about their sexual identity.

“Apparently encouraging “diversity” doesn’t extend to supporting genuine debate?  And only extremist groups’ “cultural sensitivity” counts?”

Needless to say, this letter also did not get published.   However, there are  ways around this, and cancelling your support for any Stuff – Fairfax media publication to access local news and correspondence from other sources available  is a very good strategy.

These are increasingly important issues for us all – and what is equally as important is the fact that the police hierarchy felt it appropriate to take a stand which must have made many individual police deeply uncomfortable. It’s time Commissioner Bush was indeed called upon to explain his inappropriate, apparently personal partisanship in relation to an issue causing so much concern to the wider community.

What are our prospects ahead, if we have a corrupt democracy and corrupt media?  As Toby Young points out in a recent Spectator, “a lack of democratic accountability leads to the corruption of the political class”.

What democratic accountability do we have in this country, when, as West Coast MP Damien O’Connor recently stated, the decisions are made by the party hierarchy. Nick Smith also admitted, during the doggedly charming John Key’s tight-fisted control of his party that when the leader says  jump, he asks how high…

MPs are supposed to represent their electorates – nobody believes this any more. MPs now largely do as they’re told. The corruption of the political class is apparently well under way in New Zealand.

While party politics controls the country, instead of New Zealanders themselves  – the achievable way the Swiss have shown us – we’ll continue to pay a huge price for the basic incompetence and sheer ignorance underpinning so much of the decision-making we’ve been inflicted with is recent years. And look what it’s done to this country…

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazons Kindle.

 

 

 

What Price Western values?

By far one of the best commentaries on the reality of the Islamic push against the West is supplied by the Gatestone Institute.  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12378/tommy-robinson-injustice

The quite outrageous treatment inflicted on Tommy Robinson in Britain raises growing concern relating to judicial activism – as well as police bias – if not actual corruption.

Predictably, then, it has come under attack from left liberalism with a barrage of outright untruths, and damaging claims designed to deter readers.

These should be ignored. The Institute itself has replied to them, but we can expect more, given the not only misguided, but even virulent agenda of those anti-the West and its democratic values.

One of the most appalling things about what is happening is that those whom we should have been able to rely on to speak out strongly in defence of freedom and democracy have  packed their tents… and are abandoning the most important values which underpin our society.

What about the significance of the fact that in this country, so many Protestant churches, long sold, have been turned into cafés and restaurants, while the Catholic Church, historically stronger in its beliefs and its uncompromising teaching of Christ’s message, is now, in many parishes across the country, under the authority of the present Cardinal, closing its doors to the needy, the downtrodden, the desperate…except at strictly regulated Mass times.  Apparently, insuring any valuable contents is now considered more important than ensuring that those who need to sit in peace and quiet, or to pray, are not turned away.

The Muslim mosques, however, are opening all over the country, twenty-three in Auckland alone.

What has happened when the mosques are opening, but the Church which claims to be descended in a direct line of from the apostle into whose care Christ gave it, can’t be bothered defending its core values, flying the flag for Christendom, and supporting and rallying its own people?

Where then, in face of the rise of militant Islam (by no means representative of all Muslims – but a threat to moderate Muslims, too) are we to look for hope for the future?

The answer can only be, as in Britain, in the response by so-called ordinary people, which the media like to condescendingly call “populism”.

It’s another name for people protesting against the ruling élites, to rally for the values which formed the foundation of their society, their own, independent country.

And it’s happening here, too – but it will depend, as everywhere else – not on the institutions which have grown tired, propagandised, lazy, or corrupt- but on the individual – on everyone who cares…especially about what kind of country our very precious children will face ahead…those of them who will survive opening the floodgates of abortion on demand…the battering ram of the liberal Left.

Not a word from the churches on this one. But what about Mother Teresa’s reminder that abortion is “a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? ”

One of the greatest sorrows to so many women today is the son or daughter they will never know, because at a time when they felt most vulnerable, even desperate, they were pressured by those who deal in death to abort a child they will never forget – when there was a better way ahead for them both – but it was not offered to them.

The silence of today’s Church on this, and other vital issues, is now regarded by many as very much part of the failure of its hierarchy in so long capitulating to the values of a materialistic society – letting down those who work indefatigably at its grass roots level  to keep Christ’s message alive.  Closing its doors is a sign of the abdication, in high places, of its role – some say its duty. ..while the Islamic world, fundamentally antagonistic to Christianity, we see world-wide, spreads it influence across this country.

Twenty-three mosques now in Auckland alone…While the Catholic churches, are closing their doors…under the aegis of the Cardinal, and in spite of the deep concern of so many.

And ,contrast the banning of the burka overseas, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12420/denmark-approves-burka-ban with our former Prime Minister John Key saying he was “comfortable”  with it being worn in this country. But then, John Key was “comfortable” with so much of the worrying things now happening in this country.

 

© Amy Brooke