The growing threat to society from the aggressive, anti-family intolerance…

The growing threat to society from the aggressive, anti-family intolerance…

Whose is the real intolerance? What about the attack by LGBT extremists on individual conscience – and the right to hold Christian values?

With our media now only too anxious  to constantly  centre-stage the now fashionable moves towards relationships  in direct contrast  to the family unit of father, mother and child  – underpinning  the stabilisation of Western and most other societies for thousands of years  – what about the consequences for our future?

Do we have a problem, with Jacinda Ardern’s government apparently anxious to restrict freedom of speech – which will prevent legitimate debate – in a move towards a conveniently cowed, compliant society?

And if so, who in our country is going to rise up, on behalf of our children  – like the brave man below?

Please SHARE or  LIKE  us to help. Thank you!

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.

Jonathon Van Maren

From the front lines of the culture wars: Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips YouTube

Rainbow ‘thugs’ sue Christian baker 3rd time for refusing to do ‘transition’ celebration cake

June 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The LGBT movement’s talk of tolerance has always been a joke: They fully intend to achieve cultural dominance, and then attempt to “punish” those who publicly disagree with them and crush those who refuse to go along with their agenda. That is why they actively seek florists and photographers and bakers who disagree with them: Because they need to make an example of people to warn the rest of us that if we do not submit to their ongoing transformation of the nation, they will hoist our heads on pikes.

The most prominent example of this is Colorado baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who has unfortunately found himself in their crosshairs for a third time.

Most of you will remember Jack Phillips, who fought all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission punished him for declining to create a same-sex “wedding” cake due to his Christian beliefs regarding marriage. After a years-long battle, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission that the Commission had violated Phillips’ right to freely exercise his faith due to the fact that the Commission had disparaged his religion in their ruling.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the very justice who wrote the decision legalizing gay “marriage” (and was replaced by Brett Kavanaugh) excoriated the Commission, writing that: “To describe a man’s faith as ‘one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use’ is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

LGBT activists were outraged by this decision. Phillips barely had time to take a breather before they were after him again.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Autumn Scardina, a biological man attempting to transition to female, demanded that Phillips bake him a cake celebrating his “gender transition” after Phillips faced a long list of absurd requests designed to harass and upset him, including being asked to bake a cake with Satan smoking weed, another with an upside-down cross beneath Lucifer’s head, another featuring a pentagram, and a fourth with Satan engaging in sodomy. Incensed that their intended victim had gotten away, the LGBT activists let their true colours wave proudly.

And so Scardina filed another complaint with the same Commission that had been rebuked by the Supreme Court, and Phillips sued Colorado to again re-establish his right to freedom of conscience. In March of this year, Colorado and Phillips agreed to drop the case on all sides. This, of course, infuriated Scardina, who still wanted his pound of flesh.

Scardina is now suing Phillips (his third major legal battle) for refusing to bake him a cake celebrating his transition, a cake with blue on the outside and pink on the inside to symbolize his journey from male to female. Scardina’s lawyers have expressed the view that although perhaps Phillips may have been able to get away with not creating a gay “wedding” cake due to his religious beliefs, this case may finally take Phillips down.

Phillips’ lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom have pointed out that this latest lawsuit simply rehashes similar issues, but the LGBT movement will continue to target Phillips until they break him, bankrupt him, or drive him out of business. The fact that Phillips continues to work as a baker proves that there is limits to their power, and they will not allow him to live and work in peace.

Unless the Supreme Court steps in and delivers a ruling that protects religious freedom in a far more definitive fashion than the first Masterpiece Cakeshops ruling did, we will see Phillips hounded by the rainbow thugs until they bleed him out.

Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Mark Bauerlein, who 10 years ago warned against the dangers of technology in his book, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30). The thesis of his work was the rise of technology and the elimination of reading books has made our culture stupid. You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below: 

 

 

 

It’s high time to control our damaging political party leaders!

It’s high time to control our damaging political party leaders!

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/05/the-hypocrisies-of-professional-leaders/

That political reform is needed here and elsewhere is more than obvious, and there is a crucial first step  which should now be taken in New Zealand  – and elsewhere. Look at the fiasco in Theresa May’s Britain alone…If we want to grow up as a people, we need to stop our dug-in Prime Ministers from basically dominating us all.

We have seen the damage done by tyrannical rulers – reflected both in the pages of history  – and constantly highlighted in today’s media.

But what about the fact that throughout the West those in democracies such as New Zealand are seeing a political class, dominated by party leaders with the bit between their teeth – virtually ruling their own parties – and us? Why are we letting this happen?

Although neither Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party nor John Key’s previous National government attracted more than about 37% of New Zealanders voting for them, Ardern is now posturing as the virtual ruler of this country. She is acting as if she has mandate from the country at large which she certainly doesn’t have   – as with the ideologically-driven UN Compact On Global Migration now forced upon New Zealanders.

The same with the ever-smiling John Key   – who, as a political commentator noted at the time – virtually ruled National…with one MP giving the show away when he stated that when the leader told him to jump – he asked:  “How high?”

Leaders don’t like being opposed from within their own party, and although there were damaging policy issues under Key with they disagreed, none of them apparently had the integrity to say publicly say so.The threat of losing ministerial portfolios, the extra salary, the perks, privileges and special cars …seemingly counts more than representing one’s electorate –  or standing up for once principles. So the practice of kowtowing to the party leadership means a particularly determined leader such as Helen Clark or John Key can remain dominating a party and inflicting their own agenda on the country for several years. And we all pay.

Would Helen Clark ever have been able to destroy the combat wing of our Air Force, even claiming at the time that we lived “in a particularly benign environment” (palpably quite untrue – even before the Communist Chinese infiltration of our Pacific Island neighbours, with the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and East Timor among other hot spots of unrest) if she had not become  so dominating within the Labour Party?

More and more New Zealanders are becoming restive at the racially divisive policies being forced upon this country,   the quite deliberate reinvention of the very simple provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi; the canard of the so-called “partnership” supposedly established between the Crown and Maori as an ethnic entity  (rather than aggressive opposing tribal groupings.)  And, as always, “the squeaky wheel gets the most grease”. Our politicians, dominated by our vote-seeking party leaders, give most of their time and attention to those special interest groups clamouring for more and more funding, more and more antidemocratic liberal policies – no matter how socially divisive and damaging.

The most  ignored voice of New Zealanders is now the conservative voice – the voice of families – of those wanting to preserve the best of what made us as a country, underpinned by Christian principles  and the voice of conscience in our dealings – the voice of those unwilling to embrace damagingly new directions when these mean white-anting everything that once made us proud to be New Zealanders.

And dug-in leadership has become one of the most damaging of all today.

The concept of the leader as not only party leader but  as the ruler of the country – a mantle Ardern  seems to have drawn around her own shoulders
is arguably the first that needs modifying – if we are to begin to claim back this country.

Basically,  it means that it is high time we insisted our political parties set a term limit of one year only  for a current leader, at the end of which time he/she should be obliged to step down, while another steps up for a similar term.

During this time, the party leader should be regarded as basically simply a chairman of the board, there to ensure that proper debate is held within the party, and that where policy consensus is not reached, this should be acknowledged. While directions may be set by a majority vote,  issent should also be respected and recorded.

Switzerland, that  far smarter country,  the most successful and prosperous democracy in the world, with a cabinet of only seven individuals, has long been long aware of the danger of an entrenched and determined leader. So it allows its President a one-year term only. At the end of that time, he/she steps down, and another steps up – usually the previous Finance Minister –  and so on – in rotation.

Why are we not insisting on following the best established practices to work towards genuine democratic reform?

Politicians of course, do not want genuine democratic reform. But when enough people begin to realise that this can be actually achieved, given a tipping point of New Zealanders working towards this, then it will be an idea whose time has well and truly come. We can well argue that this is  now certainly the case.

Our country is in a mess with damaging and costly ideologies – such as – but not only – the anthropogenic global warming cult being forced upon New Zealanders. We are being increasingly taxed by both central and local government policy…although it is acknowledged by Australia, too – (a far larger contributing economy than ours) that suppressing every emission from the very minor CO2 contribution to the atmosphere methane contributes far more to the atmosphere) would have absolutely no effect on the climate!   

And yet, while China and India, and other major contributors continue to rack up pollution, we are forced to pay for what has become basically a con – the political pretence that taxing New Zealanders to change the climate will be of benefit!  But it benefits nobody except our government   – always keen to take more and more of our money, which it thinks it has more right to spend than we do.Time for NZ to come of age?  Then let’s start insisting Prime Ministers and party leaders move aside – after one year in power.

Power – so consistently misused…and we all pay. We can change this.   Come on board  to help!  

See:  www.100days.co.nz  and https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

 

©  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.

 

 

A must read book about what China is really up to, here and everywhere..

What China is really up to, here and everywhere…And why is Jacinda Ardern’s government not protecting Dr Anne-Marie Brady?

Communist Chinese interests are reportedly continuing to illegally target Dr Anne-Marie with intimidating and even dangerous behaviour. So where are our strong protests?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/front-page-top-stories/news/article.cfm?c_id=698&objectid=12229428&ref=CE-NZH-DND-AM

Why aren’t the government and the New Zealand Police taking firm action over this issue?

 ” The Jaws of the Dragon  –  How China is taking over New Zealand and Australia”, an impressively researched book by Ron Asher, now updated and reissued by Tross Publishing (www.trosspublishing.co.nz) gives a highly concerning,  detailed account of how China. Inc., the business arm of  Communist China’s repressive dictatorship,  is trying to take over the world by grabbing key sectors of various countries’ economies as part of its strategic plan for global control of the world’s resources.

We should make no mistake – we are also in deep trouble here  in New  Zealand.

While  Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern  is keen to stress we have “a special relationship” with this increasingly totalitarian country, it is  more and more oppressing its own citizens.

And we’re now allowing this to happen in our own country? Any reference Miss Ardern has to date made to Dr Brady has been off-hand, and non-engaged with the reality of what is happening in regard to Communist Chinese penetration into this country.

Nor has National been any better. In fact there is no doubt that Communist Chinese money has been directed at our apparently utterly naïve politicians – even particularly at National –  under our former Prime Minister, John Key – and at buying covert media influence right across our political parties.

Far from New Zealand being excluded from  the Chinese government’s well-known trademark bullying and intimidation,  such as its rapid and unnecessary arms buildup;  its aggression against its neighbours in the South China Sea;  and its penetration into other oceans and continents in which it has no legitimate purpose or presence”,  it is clear that we are now very much part of its targeted campaign to gain as much control as possible of the strategic resources of other countries.  This has escalated  particularly now under Xi Jinping,  regarded as ruthless as Mao Tse Tung with his increasingly dictatorial and increasingly repressive demands on the Chinese population.

Has John John Key, apparently one of this ruthless individual’s biggest fans in our country, got a clue what is actually taking place in China today when he says, “I think Xi Jinping’s going to go down in history as a good leader of China”…

What an extraordinary statement….

However,  it certainly illustrates the fact that Jacinda Ardern is not alone in  the unawareness she is showing of what is taking place both in China, and in New Zealand.

Both the governments of Australia and New Zealand have apparently been very let down by our security intelligence agencies – although Australia is now several years ahead of us in implementing measures to limit Chinese influence, and to expose the degree to which China been engaged in underground and illegal activities.

For example ” AUSTRALIA must wise up to secret Chinese military activities and the threat of a land grab for resources in Antarctica, a report warns…”  The  Australian Strategic Policy Institute says “Australia’s leadership role is being eroded because of long-term under-investment at a time when other countries are expanding their presence and influence in the region. …“China has conducted undeclared military activities in Antarctica, is building up a case for a territorial claim, and is engaging in minerals exploration there,” – https://www.news.com.au/world/chinas-secret-threat-to-australias-antarctic-claim-report-reveals/news-story/d88ca4389f7d621f5b50d529954de68d

For some reason. I’m recalling the then Prime Minister Helen Clark obligingly repeatedly showing so many Communist Chinese military delegations around our own very minimal defence resources – and taking steps to destroy the combat wing of our Air Force….

Ron Asher’s vitally important book should be read by every politician – and every other New Zealander who can actually read….

For example,  how many are aware of the degree of Chinese influence in the Pacific, that this Communist country “has made Fiji an important port for its Juanwang  satellite communication vessels which can often be seen in Suva harbour. China is a nuclear power seeking to position itself on what is almost the closest island nation to New Zealand’s shores…not all that different from how the Soviet union used Cuba to intimidate the United States…. And yet John Key insisted that he is not concerned about China’s influence in the Pacific.”

Why not? China’s recent acts of belligerency suggest he should be.

What was happening when on March 2016 , when as Ron Asher points out,  12 countries voted for the United Nations Human Rights Commission’s  resolution condemning Xi’s crackdown and detention of around 250 lawyers and activists in the previous eight months?

Ireland, Australia, Britain, USA , Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany,  Iceland,  Japan,  the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden supported this principled resolution  – but not New Zealand,  where John Key’s government shockingly did not condemn the dictatorial regime of one of the most oppressive, bullying, and environmentally destructive regimes in the world.

Why not?

Arguably we are continually let down by our equivocating -over-dominating leadership.

Given the quality of his research, we simply are not able to deny that Asher is on target when he illustrates that “much of the problems we now face have been self-inflicted by the cowardice, selflessness and treachery of both Labour and National governments”.

We can probably add stupidity and naïveté to our successive Prime Ministers and MPs’  failure to prioritise the interests of our country.

As for Huawei , all the evidence points to this giant conglomerate being little more than a front for spying by China’s military and security services. As defence analyst Paul Buchanan has stated, Huawei is almost certainly a front for Chinese intelligence. It is staffed by Chinese intelligence services in the army, so it is ominous that Huawei has also built a large presence in New Zealand, having been given contracts worth tens of millions of dollars to supply networks for New Zealand’s 3.5 billion ultrafast broadband network…building the  2Degrees mobile network.

” The Jaws of the Dragon – How China is taking over New Zealand and Australia” is a tour de force of analysis and research. That so many of our politicians  – let alone our lacklustre leadership – and that certainly includes our present worryingly naïve Prime Minister  – seem to have no idea at all about the reality of the situation in which New Zealand finds itself, is simply not satisfactory.

This book is a must, deserving the widest possible readership. We simply cannot afford to let our politicians continue to sell us out.

The big question is: Why are they?

 

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.

 

—

 

With the attack on Christians worldwide, we need far more objective media

With the attack on Christians worldwide, we need far more objective media commentary.

“Christian persecution of all sorts is ratcheting up around the world. While not all of this persecution is the work of Muslims, most of it is. Yet most of the media and our world’s leaders don’t want to even discuss this. One group which monitors all this has recently released a report about it. And with the leftist media still living in denial about all these facts – especially after the Christchurch killings – another report helps to put things in perspective:

“Aid to the Church in Need, in its latest “Religious Freedom Report”, warned that 300 million Christians, overwhelmingly in the majority-Muslim countries, were subjected to violence, making it “the most persecuted religion in the world.” This makes the odds of a Christian in a majority-Muslim country being murdered by a Muslim – simply for being what he is – approximately one in 70,000. Which means that a Christian living in a majority Muslim country is 143 times more likely to be killed by a Muslim for being a Christian than a Muslim is likely to be killed by a non-Muslim in a Western country for being what he is.
voiceofeurope.com/2019/03/christians-living-in-a-muslim-country-143-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-muslim-than-vice-versa/

“And to share all these gruesome facts is not to claim that only Christians are being slaughtered by the jihadists. Yes, plenty of Muslims are also the victims of Islamic terrorism. Nonetheless, Christians continue to make up a big percentage of their bloodletting.”

See https://billmuehlenberg.com/2019/04/21/sri-lanka-jihadist-massacres-and-western-denial/

 

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.

—

Is Jacinda Ardern basically worryingly ignorant?

Is Jacinda Ardern basically worryingly ignorant?

“ I was forced to wear a hijab. It wasn’t liberating.”

“Why World Hijab Day is an insult to girls like me”.

If New Zealanders have a right to expect their Prime Ministers to have a realistic grasp of world affairs, shouldn’t Miss Ardern have known a lot better than to hastily don a hijab, no matter how well intentioned – upsetting so many brave women who have fought so long against this symbol of male oppression in the Middle East?

Shouldn’t she have known this – and a lot else? Is it time to ask whether or not our PM lacks good judgment?

This is the PM who also condescended to the Australians about their very important policy of discouraging invasions by boat people jumping the queue – and who reportedly suddenly, no doubt inadvertently, made New Zealand suddenly an attractive choice for those unscrupulous profiteers preying on those abandoning their own countries. This is the same Jacinda who doubted that New Zealand has Russian spies in this country –( which would certainly make a change…) – and who apparently doesn’t like what she is hearing, reported from Australia, that China’s spy agency was behind the burglary of Dr Anne-Marie Brady’s home and university office – and a tampering with her car. See below***

Soutiam Goodarzi

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/i-was-forced-to-wear-a-hijab-it-wasnt-liberating/

16 February 2019
“It was World Hijab Day earlier this month. You probably missed it, but you can imagine the idea: ‘global citizens’ of all faiths and backgrounds were asked to cover their heads for a day ‘in solidarity with Muslim women worldwide’. It is done in ‘recognition of millions of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab and live a life of modesty’.

“Wearing a hijab is not such an abstract cause for me: I used to wear one a few years ago when I was at school in Iran. And in the spirit of solidarity, I’d like to tell you a bit more about the world I left behind when I moved to Britain in 2011 when I was nine years old.

” I was six when I was first made to wear the hijab to school. When I was eight, I was forced to wear the hijab while walking around Arak, my hometown in north–western Iran. I did so in fear of the ‘modesty’ police, who patrolled the streets looking for anyone who dared to remove their hijab.

” For one year we had a nice teacher who on rare occasions allowed us to take our hijabs off in class, provided the door was closed, the windows shut and the blinds completely pulled. Why? There was a male janitor who used to sweep the playground, and Allah forbade that he should lay his eyes on an underage girl’s hair. She could go to hell for that.

” My teachers deemed it appropriate to shove their hands into my hijab and push my hair back to prevent a single strand of hair being on show. The intrusion didn’t stop there. Each week, we had physical checks of our hair and nails — and also, in case we were tempted to try jewellery, our ears, chests and wrists. Wearing large hairclips wasn’t allowed, despite the fact that they were hidden by our hijabs. To this day I haven’t figured out why a flower-shaped clip is provocative. Underneath the hijab, our hair had to be either short or in a firm ponytail, so that the style of hair didn’t accentuate certain areas of the fabric.

“Schoolteachers weren’t the only ones keeping a close eye on us. Iran’s modesty police were a constant and stressful presence in our lives. I’d learned, out of habit, to avoid them as much as possible, though that certainly became difficult when they didn’t want to avoid you. They used to park tactically in the road where the hair and makeup salons were ready to arrest anyone who they deemed ‘immodest’. They even arrested someone I know who was at the airport about to board a flight to Australia, because her manteau (a loose jacket that is mandatory in Iran for modesty reasons) was ‘too short’. And no, this wasn’t another era: it was just a few years ago.

” I was taught that the hijab was intended to keep a girl pure and away from the eyes of men. This is why the hijab represents a form of victim-blaming. The premise is that men are expected to act like predators, and that girls should feel they are to blame should anything untoward happen.

” If the janitor were to think impure thoughts about one of the girls in my class, that would have been her fault. If a married man thinks about a woman inappropriately, it is deemed to be her fault. Then again, he could always take her as his second wife (a practice still common in Iran).

” Some argue that the hijab is liberating for women. Having come from the inside, I can tell you: the hijab, and the kind of rule I lived under, isn’t about feminism. It isn’t an empowering rejection of being judged by your appearance. It is a form of submission: the chaining up of women to the mullahs who promulgate this nonsense. For women who have been forced to wear a hijab, World Hijab Day is an insult. It’s an open attempt to portray oppressors as victims, and to overlook the feelings of women who have been taught to believe throughout their lives that they are second-class beings.

“I have found my life in Britain to be a liberation, but it staggers me to see so much nonsense spoken about the hijab and the regime I escaped. There are brave women imprisoned in Iran for various infractions of the modesty code; there are women who have been treated appallingly for wearing a hijab that is too loose or transparent. More recently, there have been women punished for not wearing a hijab. And yet the hijab is now celebrated in the West. ‘It’s OK to be modest,’ say the hijab’s apologists. Well of course, but there is nothing modest about brushing over the suffering of the women and girls of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

“I have tended to keep quiet about the fact that I used to wear a hijab. I was so wounded by the horrors of Islam that I wanted to pretend it never existed. But in Britain I realise I now have a voice, and that I am not a second-class citizen who should be scared of talking out of turn. I have also realised that I don’t deserve to be scolded by religious women for ditching the hijab. In Britain, it is acceptable to be a free woman. You don’t have to obey the restrictive demands of your father, husband or government.

” I have changed a lot since I was six. I’m now 16, and while I can’t say I have better hair, I have something even better: freedom. I now try to see World Hijab Day as a day to celebrate being free of the hijab. Women like me who have escaped the veil can use this day to rejoice in our newfound liberty.”

As reader comments:” True solidarity would see all Western, non-Muslim women never wearing a hijab, in moral support of the Muslim women who are forced to cover their hair – until Muslim women have complete freedom. Until then, it is unavoidably a symbol of theocratic male oppression.”

Shouldn’t our PM  have known this – and a lot else…?

This is the PM who also condescended to the Australians about their very important policy of discouraging invasions by the boat people jumping the queue – and who reportedly suddenly, no doubt inadvertently, made New Zealand an attractive choice for those unscrupulous profiteers, preying on         those abandoning their own countries. This is the same Jacinda who doubted that New Zealand has Russian spies in this country –( which would certainly make a change…) and who apparently doesn’t like what she is hearing, reported from Australia, that China’s spy agency was behind the burglary of Dr Anne-Marie Brady’s home and university office – and the dangerous tampering with her car.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12220421

What this apparently worryingly under-informed Prime Minister needs to take on board is that , as the temporary leader of a Labour Party which nearly two thirds of the country rejected in the last election – hence the cobbled- up coalition – she is basically simply the chairman of her party… and that her illogical views on diversity ( i.e. division, divisiveness?) which took shape under the failed doctrine of multiculturalism overseas  – needs to be rethought – or at the very least not imposed upon the country.

With good reason it has been said that country divided against itself cannot stand.

It would be more than foolish to forget that that assimilation – the acceptance of all New Zealanders dedicated to the democratic cohesion of the country – is what we should be asking for from those who live here or wish to make this country their home.

Equal rights for all – regardless of, colour, gender, race or creed has always been the flag of democracy.

Separatism – where rifts begin to develop because individual ethnic groups or fundamentalist religions begin to demand preference – or special acknowledgement – cannot coexist with a stable democracy.

 On the contrary,  a country survives peacefully when all individuals work with a common purpose. And a common understanding of how easily democratic freedoms can be lost needs to be constantly kept in mind.

In the end, everything depends upon the commitment of individuals to remember how so many of our forebears fought for this – many giving up their lives to do so. Should we be letting them down?

©Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  www.100days.co.nz

 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.

 

— Amy Brooke Visit my homepage and children’s literature website: www.amybrooke.co.nz

www.100days.co.nz

Christchurch – and saying goodbye to so much…

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/christchurch-and-saying-goodbye-to-so-much/

Or see:

Christchurch – and saying goodbye to so much                                                       

Our saddest times are when those we love leave us. What when there is not even time to say goodbye, with the pain and confusion even worse?  Everywhere the hearts and minds of New Zealanders, irrespective of their personal faiths, reached out to the victims of the appalling massacre in Christchurch of Muslims, family people attending a mosque, murdered in an act so evil few would have credited it happening in this country.

There are undoubtedly lessons to be learned from this. What we should worry about is that some of these may very well be the wrong ones, and may be used to advantage those whom no country ever lacks – those few, very determined, radicalised individuals anxious to undermine it – with the help of history’s “useful fools” who, as always, fall into their hands.  Among those most likely to produce overreaching, knee-jerk regulation in response will be our politicians.

Ironically, what the media are of course actually avoiding mentioning is how very rare in the West is such an assault against on a Muslim community  – contrasted with the sustained attack upon Western democracies long mounted by Islamic fanaticism. The latter is of course rejected by moderate Muslims, very often even its first target, but,  like all so called “ordinary people” worldwide, basically as conservative and motivated by love for their families and friends as those from all  other countries.

Ordinary people? I recall once stopping at a Muslim coffee shop near Wellington. I’ll never forget the sheer kindness of its owner, Abdel,  who insisted, without payment, on giving my sister and me a special cup of coffee and an almond biscuit when he found we had just left from farewelling my mother.

I recall, too, years ago, the young Chinese university student from a sheltered building in almost torrential rain at Canterbury University. With the tarmac virtually a flooded lake, she saw me trying to juggle an umbrella and saturated map, and came to help me locate the building I needed – ending up equally saturated.

And strikingly, Cliff Emeny, the New Zealand fighter pilot to whom I dedicated my book “The 100 days – Claiming back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians,” who contacted me when a Dominion columnist, raising questions about what was happening to our democracy. It was Cliff who sent me to check out the only genuine democracy in the world, Switzerland,   whose people control their politicians  – not vice versa. Shot down in Burma in World War II,  tortured by brutal Japanese military to reveal the whereabouts of his squadron, Cliff was tied each day to a stake in the burning sun. However, Japanese night guards crept out to untie him, lying him down to sleep,  giving him food,  drink and sleep – retying him in the morning before the day shift took over.

What happened in Christchurch is an appalling, shocking reminder of the reality of evil. Throughout Western countries, there has been rising concern that Islamic fanaticism, turning also upon its own people, was reaching even further  achieving damaging mileage through the emotional pressures of the refugee movement. The consequences for societies such as Angela Merkel’s in Germany, where Isis members have openly boasted of successful infiltration –  while posing as genuine refugees  –  have included  the marked rise of terrorism, including  leaps in both violent crimes and attacks on Western women.

New Zealanders have only gradually become aware of the very real threat posed by transnational terrorism, which the Australian government identified in 2004 as a threat to Australia and to Australian citizens.   From 2000 onwards tensions rose between Muslim immigrants and a wider Australian community,  particularly given the reporting of gangs of Lebanese men sexually assaulting Australian women.

Reflecting on the humanity of people worldwide used as political tools and cannon fodder by ambitious leaders, one can see the commonality between those who are now saying they have had enough, New Zealanders among these – but rather late in the day. Being somewhat over–sheltered, with no historically aggressive foreign countries pressing on our borders  has led to that our present, incredibly naïve Prime Minister even dismissing the possibility of  Russian spies in our country. And now, with Communist Chinese funding being questioned in relation to political donations,  that our equally  challenged National Opposition contains a former Communist Chinese spymaster, hiding his credentials at the time to gain List entry into Parliament,  beggars belief.

Change has been so incremental that it is very late for non-politicised individuals to realise how much has regressed since we were regarded as  “God’s own country” and “the best place in the world to bring up children”. Contrast this with the Left’s now domination of the teacher unions; the dumbing down,  quite shocking propagandising of the schools curricula replacing valuable, worthwhile content;  and the abuse of children by its progressively worse “liberalising” –  to the extent where it is now proposed that destructive transgender indoctrination be forced on schoolchildren – irrespective of the objection of parents.  The American College of Pediatricians’ warning that  – “Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse”  –  cuts no ice with our neo-Marxists infiltrators long gaining control of the directions of education  –  and of mainstream media in this country.

The result? The pernicious attack on free speech, the essential component of a genuine democracy by those bludgeoning New Zealanders with the name-calling of hate speech, racism, homophobia – any verbal bullying tool to hand. And foremost among New Zealanders’ concerns has been the fact that the unctuous calling for “diversity”  by the virtue-signalling evades the fact that diversity, divisiveness and division are wedges used to destroy the essential cohesiveness of a stable society.

A huge challenge lies ahead, to prevent the excuse of the dreadful happening in Christchurch being used as a tool to further target those raising genuine concerns  about so much decision-making from which recent governments have very much  excluded New Zealanders.

 

© Amy Brooke

 

Christchurch –  and saying goodbye to so much

 

 

Has Jacinda Ardern gone too far? Some now think so.

Has Jacinda Ardern gone too far?  Some now think so. Troubling issues are arising.

An issue not being raised in the mainstream media is that questions are very much  in evidence among New Zealanders at large about whether Jacinda Ardern’s naivety has affected her judgment – not only in donning a hijab, regarded by so many Muslim women  forced to wear this head covering as a symbol of patriarchal oppression. The highly respected Spectator https://spectator.us/jacinda-ardern-hijab-muslims/ highlights what The Gatestone Institute has also drawn our attention – to  “ A female lawyer who courageously defended Iranian women who removed their hijabs to protest the Iranian regime’s misogynistic treatment, was sentenced recently to 33 years in prison and a flogging of 150 lashes.  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13912/uk-bans-hezbollah

Given the long association with the hijab imposed upon Muslim women in oppressive male patriarchies such as Iran and Saudi  Arabia today, the question of whether the hijab recently donned and extensively worn by the Prime Minister was appropriate, even given her obvious attempt to express  the sadness and horror felt New Zealanders nationwide at the shocking massacre of a Muslim people in Christchurch?

And from a concerned expatriate comes an important question – after viewing the photograph that went around the world of a young police officer wearing a hijab with a red rose, she asks – shouldn’t  the  police be more a-religious? That is, regardless of the religious and ethical beliefs of individual police members, are our police not required to act in a secular capacity, without fear or favour in carrying out law enforcement duties, preventing crime, maintaining public order and protecting private property – treating all citizens impartially and with respect?  Reportedly police officers dotted around Christchurch also wore green ribbons pinned to their chests as a sign of peace and solidarity. Another puzzled New Zealander says doubtfully that he is not sure the rose is appropriate for an officer on duty. Another concurs, in relation to the wearing of the hijab. “Agreed. These events smack of virtue-signalling as well as over-eagerness to appease members of a religion whose extremists are unfortunately associated with violence elsewhere.”

While this attack on a peaceful Muslim group in Christchurch profoundly shocked and was deplored by the whole country, New Zealanders are not naïve and know that Islam itself is involved with violence worldwide – even turning uponmoderate Muslims  to achieve its aims. There is little doubt that while New Zealanders’ reaction to the dreadful killings in Christchurch has been one of total support to all involved, some troubling issues have emerged.

Chief among people’s concerns have been what is seen as the opportunity for  inappropriate knee-jerk reactions by Jacinda Ardern’s government. Governments never lose any opportunity to increase their power, and many from the conservative majority in this country, people working to provide a future for themselves –  concerned at the constant intrusion of government into all our lives – may now feel that  the fringe extremist groups – to which successive governments have long given listening priority _ will be working to make the most of this opportunity to gain even further mileage.

There is no doubt that most New Zealanders feel disenfranchised from the decisions made by our political parties and their all-controlling hierarchies in relation to issues which very much determine the directions in which we are going. While our media’s love affair with Ardern extends to all her decision-making, many New Zealanders are questioning the suitability – (or rather the lack of appropriateness) of  broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer over our national radio – and centres-taging a Muslim prayer in parliament – given that any references to Christianity in our House of Representatives have been high-handedly removed – in spite of very strong protest.

When he was appointed Speaker of the House, the left-wing, former Labour MP Trevor Mallard took it upon himself to remove from Parliament our  traditional prayer,  and references to the Queen. Predictably, he provided for a vague prayer to be made to a God  in te reo  Maori – (now  regarded by many as having been so substantially reinvented and elasticised that it bears minimal relationship to the genuine Maori language). Equally predictably, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern  supported Mr Mallard – even in the face of the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and other MPs saying that this is a decision that should have been left to the whole House  – not just to one person.

What has gradually happened in this country is troubling very many New Zealanders – as is the question of whether our police are moving towards more activist statements and positions  – even give the worthiness of current issues – (or not,  as the case may be). This question came to the limelight when Police Commissioner Mike Bush favoured showing support for the fringe event of the Hero Parade staged by the LGBT community and its various subcultures – when police were actually encouraged to take up an activist stance by marching in this parade. Incredibly enough, a police car was painted in rainbow colours and police encouraged to wear pink shirts. Viewed by many as a concerning partisan stance, it also raised eyebrows about whether it showed questionable judgment.

This is an interesting issue, given no indication of similar extra support showed to conservative Christian groups in this country, or to pro-life organisations  speaking for the rights of those most vulnerable of all New Zealanders, the unborn children… or even to extending extra support to the Falun Gong  against Communist Chinese displeasure at protests by these brave people  trying to draw New Zealanders’ attention to the removal of vital organs from their fellow countrymen in the horrific practices by Communist Chinese.

Many will also recall the then Prime Minister Jenny Shipley’s order for  New Zealanders  peacefully protesting in Christchurch about China’s invasion of Tibet to be removed further away by the police – with buses placed in front of them to obscure them from the sight of a visiting Chinese delegation.

How much our police  are controlled by the government is an interesting issue. And when MPs were told into 2015 by Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully that they were to avoid events involving the Falung Gong late in May because the Chinese Embassy would monitor them and lodge official protests, Labour Foreign Affairs spokesman David  Shearer,  to his credit, said such a warning had no place in a free society. The leaked email was aimed at National MPs, but sent in error to others. As Shearer remarked , “New Zealand has a proud history of free speech, freedom of religion, and an independent foreign policy. It should be Kiwis, and Kiwis, only who should decide where they go  and who (sic) they should  associate with. He added  that this should not be dictated by McCully and his ministry because they felt  it might upset another country, and that, “It was further evidence of a government that had lost its way, as well as its moral compass, and the principles on which New Zealand was founded”.

One of these important principles is that of free speech  –  and this is an area where many New Zealanders now feel they are being threatened and monitored – with a resulting consequence that they can be accused of the nebulous “hate speech”  – simply by  speaking their mind honestly and truthfully about what many see as growing divisions, by no means accidentally fostered, within our society.

The politically correct constant claim about the need for diversity, for example, ignores one very important point. So-called diversity leads to divisiveness, and divisiveness leads to divisions. Yet a country divided against itself becomes destabilised. Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves who stands to benefit from this.

© Amy Brooke – See www.100days.co.nz and https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

And a must read – see below.

The Chilling Crackdown on Freedom and the Uncritical Elevation of Islam Following Christchurch. From the Australian commmentator, Bill Muehlenberg  (edited).Mar 24, 2019

If you are reading this article – or this website – you are doing well. I really do not believe both will be around a whole lot longer – not the way the crackdown on free speech is going. Throughout the West the forces of intolerance and bigotry – yes, the secular left – are doing all they can to stamp out all points of view but their own.

And leading the way here is how the left is seeking to make all criticism of Islam illegal. Demands have been made for decades now that all criticism and critical assessment of Islam become verboten, and after Christchurch this is ramping up even further.

The Islamic war on freedom, free speech and the West – aided and abetted by the left – is now moving along very nicely, and anyone with eyes wide open has good reason to be very concerned. Daily now we see moves to restrict our freedoms and constrain free speech.

A few recent examples can be noted here. Recently in the UK an African street preacher was arrested for simply proclaiming the gospel in public. As I wrote on February 28, “A black street pastor, believed to be a Nigerian man, was arrested in London on 23 February apparently for an alleged ‘breach of the peace’ as he preached the Gospel outside Southgate Underground Station.”
billmuehlenberg.com/2019/02/28/how-the-west-was-won-and-lost/

When the Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was asked about this worrying case involving Oluwole Ilesanmi, he could not give a straight answer, but mumbled about the importance of free speech. When asked if street preachers could freely read from the Bible on the streets of London, he simply said that he had not read all of it. Andrea Williams, head of the Christian Legal Centre, said this about the case:

“Street preaching in the UK has a long, storied history. Open air preaching is the only way to guarantee that all the public is given the opportunity to respond to the love of Jesus Christ. But despite laws that theoretically support the freedom to preach in public, in practice, police officers are quick to silence preachers after any suggestion (often false) of Islamophobia or homophobia. This is not only unjust, but chills free speech through self-censorship. We want to see police officers protect the freedom of street preachers by only using their powers when truly necessary. “
www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2019/march/british-police-finally-admit-driving-street-preacher-out-of-london-neighborhood-to-silence-him

But let’s look further at the fallout from the Christchurch shooting. I have already mentioned some of them, including how one New Zealand book chain has pulled the best-selling book 12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson simply because he dared to pose with some fan who had a t-shirt on which was critical of Islam.

A private business is free to do what it wants I suppose, but the rank hypocrisy here is sickening. As has been pointed out, while Whitcoulls has ditched Peterson’s book – which has sold millions of copies and helped so many people – it is still happily selling Hitler’s Mein Kampf!

Consider also some political fallout from this. On Tuesday March 19 Islamic prayers were heard in the New Zealand Parliament in a further “show of solidarity.” Um, whatever happened to the separation of mosque and state? Recall that over a year ago New Zealand dumped any mention of Jesus in its parliamentary prayer. As one report said at the time:

Mentions of Jesus and the Queen have been removed from Parliament’s Te reo karakia, or prayer. A consultation period for the new karakia isn’t over yet but the Speaker of the House, Trevor Mallard, has already adopted it, RNZ reports. That’s been causing concern amongst some in opposition, but Mallard says he’ll consider any feedback before a final decision is made.
www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98742522/parliament-prayer-changes–no-more-queen-or-jesus

And on Friday Muslim prayers were broadcast around the nation with full, official government support and backing. Not only that but many schools were strongly encouraging their female students to wear a hijab in support. But I thought education in NZ was supposed to be secular?

Many are now wondering if the aim here is the eventual Islamisation of New Zealand. If so, not bad, considering only one per cent of its population is Muslim. While Christians make up around half of New Zealand’s population, it seems they have nowhere near such influence.

And recall that the previous Friday various newsreaders for the evening news in New Zealand had donned the hijab for yet more ‘solidarity’ and ‘identification’ with the Muslim community. Wow. Talk about falling over themselves in an attempt to appease Muslims while effectively slapping the faces of those in the Christian community and other faith-based or even non-faith-based groups in NZ.

And even more frightening was this recent headline: “Hijab wearing police officer’s photo makes powerful statement in wake of Christchurch mosque shootings”. I offer the photo of this above.
www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111491996/hijab-wearing-police-officers-photo-makes-powerful-statement-in-wake-of-christchurch-mosque-shootings

And the NZ shooting is also having quite an impact overseas. Consider a case in Canada where an atheist – not a Christian – who happens to be an ex-Muslim, has had his speech cancelled because of the NZ shooting:

An ex-Muslim who is now an atheist and secular activist says Mount Royal University is overreacting by canceling his talk that was planned on campus for Thursday. Armin Navabi, who lives in British Columbia, was being brought in by the Atheist Society of Calgary to share his journey and discuss the reasons he doesn’t believe the Islamic faith can be reformed. But now he says he’s disappointed he won’t get a chance to engage in some passionate discussions with staff and students, including those who still practice Islam, because of MRU’s last-minute decision.

“What do they want? Do you want to have less conversation? Isn’t less conversation exactly what leads to people having extreme radical positions,” said Navabi. “I mean the less words exchanged between us, the more fists and bullets are going to exchange between people. Having more conversations is exactly what you need in the face of some tragedy like this.”
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mount-royal-university-armin-navabi-new-zealand-ex-muslim-atheist-speech-1.5065319

But wait, there’s more. Get a load of this one: “A petition started in France is circulating online for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for her response to the shooting massacre in Christchurch.” Wow! Let’s just go all the way and proclaim her to be the Messiah!
www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111502795/international-petition-pushes-for-jacinda-ardern-to-get-the-nobel-peace-prize

Plenty more examples of leftism spiralling out of control, and the curbing of various freedoms as well as free speech could be offered here. The horrible NZ massacre – as chilling as it was – is now being used all over the world to push something Muslims have been keen to push: the end of all criticism of Islam.

Indeed, Muslims have long sought to shut down all criticism of Islam by any means possible. There are far too many examples of this to recount here. Let me just offer a few. A decade ago this was even being pushed at the UN level. The Organization of the Islamic Conference pushed U.N. Resolution 62/154, on “Combating defamation of religions.” It sought to have Islam be officially shielded from any criticism.

Countless other such calls have been made over the years. And following the Christchurch massacre we are again hearing such calls, loud and clear. Let me give just one more as an example, this time back here in Australia. As we have heard so often before, Islamic leaders are again calling for the end of critical commentary on Islam. As one report puts it:

The Grand Mufti of Australia and New Zealand Ibrahim Abu Mohamed has called on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to push for new laws to greater protect Muslims against Islamaphobia. Dr Mohamed met with Mr Morrison following Friday’s Christchurch mosque massacre which claimed 50 lives.

He told SBS Arabic24 that he brought three items to the table during the meeting, including his request for the introduction of new laws which would make it an offence to discriminate against Muslims. He noted that such laws would be similar to those in place in numerous countries which protect Jews against antisemitic speech.

Section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act prohibits actions, including what is widely called hate speech, that “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people” based on their race. However, comments directed towards Muslims are said towards people who adhere to the Islamic faith, not at a racial group. He also asked Mr Morrison to ensure that the Christchurch attack was “documented” in a way that it would “go down in history as a terrible massacre”.
www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/arabic/en/article/2019/03/18/grand-mufti-calls-new-laws-protect-muslims-against-virus-racism?fbclid=IwAR1w6_nJ5Bhyy8mxwWRnaGHlRia_t5_WB8mWEdLOveJGs1tdtJySdZK0hWY

Section 18C has of course already been a disaster when it comes to free speech, and this Muslim leader wants to make it much worse. We should be getting rid of 18C altogether, not adding more to this draconian piece of Australian law – a case that I have made elsewhere.

By  Bill Muehlenberg (edited).