What Bill of Rights?

What Bill of Rights?

Concern is now very real  that the deeply undemocratic Andrew Little (who voted for the killing of unborn children to become easier – in spite of 91.6% of submissions to parliament opposing this) is now attempting to use nationwide worry about Covid 19 to distract the country from his intention to push through the deeply undemocratic hate speech legislation he is sponsoring. 

Yet we all know that our Bill of Rights (as Lindsay Perigo reminds us )  contains the following:

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Public Act 1990 No 109
Date of assent 28 August 1990

13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

14 Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

There is no such thing as the right not to be offended—Salman Rushdie.

New Zealanders are reasonable people, and only a fringe element would ever use speech that others find hateful.

But in a knee-jerk action to the shocking and shameful attack on the Muslim community in Christchurch  —one for which no New Zealander was responsible.

Perhaps this needs to be remembered, as the media has been centre-staging the fact of its anniversary —which some see an attempt to lay a guilt trip on New Zealanders as a whole.

Undoubtedly, an opportunity is also being taken by the Labour Party government to control New Zealanders even further.

Parliament’s phone  number is 04 817 9999.

Arguably, we all need to pick up that phone far more often,  and ask to be put through to the relevant office—here that of Andrew Little or Jacinda Ardern. Neither of these offices are presently answering the phone.

Grant Robertson’s office is,  and his helpful telephonist was happy to pass on the concern I expressed, with a reminder that majority of New Zealanders undoubtedly feel the same, and that Little has no mandate at all to undertake what he’s doing.

His intent, as he well knows, directly contravenes our Bill of Rights. It’s doubly problematic,  because some of the impetus is coming from a religious group within this country,  when in fact its extremists worldwide have been and are constantly targeting and killing Christians. So essentially it can be viewed as a power move from representatives of this religion, the majority of whom we know are moderate people—but whom we see worldwide are themselves being targeted, used and sheltering — inadvertently or not their own extremists.

To allow any religious or ethnic group to dictate government policy is unacceptable.

Of equal concern is that the police should be involved with this issue. For obvious reasons, the police should never be involved in formulating government policy. They are essentially there to maintain law and order and to protect the public against criminal activity.

Thanks to all of you who don’t forget that the price of a democracy, of freedom, is paid only by eternal vigilance.

Please help to warn others –  and contact parliament yourself.

Why not?

© 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.

The real Western civilisation emergency?

The real Western civilisation emergency? 

The inexcusable, great global warming scam — and what it is going to cost us — is brilliantly illustrated by Melanie Phillips below.* It’s too important to miss!

And why are we finding that we now have to use wood burners even earlier each year in New Zealand? Ours and neighbours’ are now being used already in March — as they were, nearing the end of last year – when we’re supposed to be having global warming!

Remember Greenpeace? Another theory about why we have all been conned — this includes our governments and local bodies —has now been advanced by none other than the founder of Greenpeace *“Dr Patrick Moore, who subsequently saw the light. He suggested that after the failure of Soviet communism, neo-Marxists used green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than with the science of ecology.” 

And how much of the sheer ignorance of this anti-capitalist agenda has been shown by other mayors and local bodies around the country? Incredibly enough, in Nelson, Mayor Rachel Reese actually enthusiastically hugged members of Extinction Rebellion, the anarchist group gluing themselves to tunnels, roads, etc in Britain.

In a display of extraordinary gullibility Reese has seen to the Nelson City Council establishing an inexcusably  expensive undertaking to tackle Nelson’s non-existent climate change emergency, employing new staff, with all the salaries and equipment involved — and reportedly inappropriately diverting the funding from other council accounts to do so.  But we don’t have any climate change emergency in Nelson!  There’s absolutely no proof of this at all – so what excuse is there for  the Nelson City Council’s sheer gullibility  – and the rise of rates inflicted on an already overtaxed community? 

Don’t miss Melanie Philips below!  

©  Amy Brooke. Check out my book,  ” The 100 Days  – Claiming back New Zealand…What has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians“. Available from my website – http://www.amybrooke.co.nz – or from Amazon’s Kindle

CIVILISATION EMERGENCY

FEBRUARY 21, 2020 , by MELANIE Philips.  

*A few commentators have begun to stumble towards the fact that the policy of becoming “carbon neutral” by 2050, as adopted by the UK and the EU, would undo modernity itself.

On Unherd, Peter Franklin observes that, if carried through, the policy will have a far greater effect than Brexit or anything else; it will transform society altogether.

“It will continue to transform the power industry, and much else besides: every mode of transport; how we build, warm and cool our homes; food, agriculture and land use; trade, industry, every part of the economy”.

Franklin is correct. Even so, he seems not to grasp the full implications of the disaster he intuits – because he thinks there’s some kind of middle way through which the imminent eco-apocalypse can be prevented without returning Britain to the Middle Ages.

In similar vein he quotes Rachel Wolf, a co-author of the 2019 Conservative manifesto, who is prone to the same kind of magical thinking. She wrote:

“Government has committed to ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions because it does not want the side effects of the energy sources we have used for centuries to destroy the planet. At the same time, we do not want to return to an era where children (and their mothers) regularly died, and where the majority of people lived in what would now in the UK be considered wholly unacceptable poverty. This is a staggering challenge”.

This is what we might call an understatement. What is truly staggering is, first, that any sentient person thinks this can be done and, second, that it should be done.

For it’s not just that the carbon-neutral target will destroy the livelihoods and wreck the living standards of millions of people. It’s not even that it would take Britain and the west backwards to a pre-industrial way of life.

More fundamentally, it shows that policymakers and politicians – even those who may not fawn idiotically over Greta Thunberg and who rightly view Extinction Rebellion as a bunch of anarchist vandals – have not the slightest scintilla of a clue that the whole idea of a “climate emergency” is bogus from start to finish.

Those who point this out are vilified by the chillingly offensive term “climate-change deniers” and written off as a small bunch of cranks. This merely shows the terrifying effects of groupthink. The claim that “97 per cent” of scientists support the prediction of planetary disaster through anthropogenic global warming – a figure that is itself said to have misrepresented the evidence – denies the key scientific principle that science is never settled.

It also ignores the hundreds of scientists in related fields, many with stellar reputations and some of whom themselves served as expert reviewers for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change until they decided the IPCC was hijacking science for ideological ends, who have shown repeatedly that the evidence for a “climate emergency” doesn’t hold up for a moment.

What these scientists are telling us is that policy-makers are intending to destroy the west’s economic and social ecology even though:

  • There’s no evidence that current changes in the climate are different from the fluctuations in climate over the centuries;
  • The idea that the non-linear, chaotic and infinitely complex climate can be significantly affected by anything human beings may do is intrinsically absurd;
  • All climate forecasts are based on computer modelling which is unable to process this level of complexity and unpredictability, and which is also susceptible to false assumptions fed into the programmes which produce false results;
  • Much evidence of current environmental trends is ambiguous and contested;
  • Much climate-related research is scientifically illiterate or the product of outright intellectual fraud;
  • Scientists in climate-related fields can often only obtain grant funding if their research corresponds to apocalyptic AGW theory. This innate distorting mechanism will be hugely exacerbated by the $10 billion which Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has announced he is investing to “save Earth” from climate change, “the biggest threat to our planet”.

Nevertheless, scientists with intellectual and moral integrity are continuing to challenge this bogus science with actual facts. I reported several of these in my 2010 book, The World Turned Upside Down. Here are a few more recent examples.

  • Professor Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, has saidthat the World Meteorological Organisation is misleading the public by suggesting that global warming and its impacts are accelerating. He wrote:

Reading the WMO report, you would think that global warming was getting worse. But in fact it is carefully worded to give a false impression. The data are far more suggestive of an improvement than a deterioration. After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming “pause” of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

“…The temperature variations recorded in the lower troposphere are generally reflected at higher altitudes also, and the overall temperature ‘pause’ since about 2002 is recorded at all altitudes, including the tropopause and into the stratosphere above. In the stratosphere, however, the temperature ‘pause’ had already commenced by around 1995; that is, 5–7 years before a similar temperature ‘pause’ began in the lower troposphere near the planet’s surface.The stratospheric temperature ‘pause’ has now lasted without interruption for about 24 years”.

  • Paul Homewood wrote herethat the Met Office’s Central England Temperature Record shows that temperatures have barely changed in 20 years and that there has been no increase in extremely hot days either:

“The summer of 2018 had just one day over 30 degrees, while 1976 had six. The Met Office’s data show that hot days are just not becoming more common.” And there seems to be little to worry about on bad weather front either. There has been a gentle decline in storminess, and in most of the UK, there has been no change in either average rainfall or rainfall extremes”.

  • A leading climatologist, Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has saidthat the computer simulations used to predict global warming are failing on a key measure of the climate today and cannot be trusted.

“They all have rapid warming above 30,000 feet in the tropics – it’s effectively a diagnostic signal of greenhouse warming. But in reality it’s just not happening. It’s warming up there, but at only about one third of the rate predicted by the models.”

  • Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin saysthe IPCC’s Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5), which makes a “costly and highly disruptive recommendation” that carbon emissions be reduced to zero by mid-century, lacks the scientific rigour to support such a proposal.

“There is much recent observational and scientific evidence that the IPCC report has failed to include and which supports a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme and unrealistic measures called for in the SR1.5 report”.

  • reviewof Met Office weather data found the UK climate was more stable than was being suggested.

The review, which examines official temperature, rainfall, drought and other weather data shows that although temperatures increased slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, there is no evidence that weather has become more extreme. And intriguingly, extreme heat is, if anything, slightly less common than in previous decades.In particular, heatwaves have not become more severe and nor have droughts. Data also suggest that recent warming has had little effect on the severity of flooding in the UK”.

  • Richard Lindzen, formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He has consistently drawn attention to the fact that AGW theory is a sham and a scam.

In a lecture in 2018, he ridiculed the core premises of AGW theory that the climate, a complex multifactor system, could be summarised in just one variable – the globally averaged temperature change – and that it was primarily controlled by the 1-2 per cent perturbation in the single variable of carbon dioxide. This, he said, is “an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking.”

“Turning to the issue of temperature extremes, is there any data to even support concern? As to these extremes, the data shows no trend and the IPCC agrees… At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming.

“This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use. Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem”.

So what’s really going on here? How come so many scientists subscribe to this falsification of science itself?

One clue lay in an article published in the Guardian in 2007 by Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and a guru of AGW orthodoxy. In seeking to rebut the argument that global warming theory was bunk, he openly acknowledged that the theory could not be supported by the “normal” rules of scientific inquiry. He wrote:

“The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow… Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science.But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity”.

As I wrote in The World Turned Upside Down: “It was a brazen admission that, in the name of science, scientific reason had been junked altogether to promote mere ideological conviction. In other words, science— the hard-wiring that underpins our age of reason — has short-circuited itself. It has mutated into a denial of rationality in order to change the very way in which people think. This is not about submitting theories or hypotheses or evidence for public debate. This is about using ‘science’ to stifle public debate and change the way people think and behave”.

Another theory was advanced by none other than the founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore, who subsequently saw the light. He suggested that after the failure of Soviet communism, neo-Marxists used green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than with the science of ecology.

That certainly corresponds with the real agenda of Extinction Rebellion, a leak from whose computer database revealed that its aims include “to build structure, community and test prototypes in preparation for the coming structural collapse of the regimes of western ‘democracies’ — now seen as inevitable due to stored-up crisis. Thus preparing a foundation to transform society and resist fascism/other extremes. This includes creating Rising from the Wreckage – a citizens’ assembly based on sortition [random selection]”.

Another scientist has heard other echoes. Professor Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, was appalled by the IPCC’s false claims about the increased risk from global warming of malaria, a disease on which Reiter is a world expert. And he noted the parallels between the global warming scam and “Lysenkoism” in the Soviet Union.

Trofim Lysenko was an agricultural scientist who claimed falsely that he could eradicate starvation by modifying seeds before cultivation and thus multiply grain production. He argued that conventional genetics was ‘fascist genetics’. Opposition to him was not tolerated. As a result, between 1934 and 1940 numerous geneticists were shot or exiled to Siberia and starved to death, including the Director of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1943.

Lysenko took his place and in 1948 genetics was labelled ‘bourgeois pseudoscience’. The ban on genetics was lifted in 1965 after tens of millions had starved to death because Lysenko’s agricultural polices had not produced enough food.

Reiter commented: “One of the few geneticists who survived the Stalin era wrote: ‘Lysenko showed how a forcibly instilled illusion, repeated over and over at meetings and in the media, takes on an existence of its own in people’s minds, despite all realities’. To me, we have fallen into this trap”.

The “climate emergency”, which we are told threatens the imminent collapse of civilisation and the extinction of humanity, is a dogma being enforced by a culturally totalitarian tyranny. Threatening the living standards of millions, permitting no challenge and wrecking the livelihoods and reputations of any who dares dissent, it has been created by a repudiation of science, humanity and reason: the very markers of modernity and the west. This is the real emergency. ”

 

 

91.6% submissions from New Zealanders opposed this barbaric abortion bill.

91.6% submissions from New Zealanders opposed this barbaric abortion bill.

A very good illustration of the way our antidemocratic parliament once more flagrantly ignores the wishes of the majority.

See important findings below…and vote out the MPs ignoring all these — and ignoring the question of the lack of morality involved in deliberately destroying a blameless and defenceless little human life…

© Amy Brooke

“Unborn babies may feel pain before the 24-week abortion limit, scientists say

  • Unborn babies might be able to feel ‘something like pain’ as early as 13 weeks 
  • To carry on regardless of new evidence ‘flirts with moral recklessness’, they say
  • The lead author of the controversial article is British professor Stuart Derbyshire 

By Stephen Adams for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 12:01 AEDT, 19 January 2020 | Updated: 03:27 AEDT, 22 January 2020

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7903507/Unborn-babies-feel-pain-24-week-abortion-limit-scientists-say.html

Unborn babies may be able to feel pain before reaching 24 weeks, say scientists – meaning they could suffer as they are being aborted.

Until now, the consensus of medical opinion has been that foetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks’ gestation, after which abortion is illegal in Britain except in special cases.

But two medical researchers, including a ‘pro-choice’ British pain expert who used to think there was no chance foetuses could feel pain that early, say recent studies strongly suggest the assumption is incorrect.

The studies indicate unborn babies might be able to feel ‘something like pain’ as early as 13 weeks, they say.

Unborn babies may be able to feel pain before reaching 24 weeks, say scientists – meaning they could suffer as they are being aborted.

Women going for abortions who have reached this stage of pregnancy should be told the foetus could experience pain while being terminated, they argue. And medical staff should ask if the woman wants it to be given pain relief.

To carry on regardless of new evidence ‘flirts with moral recklessness’, they write in the influential Journal of Medical Ethics.

Last night, anti-abortionists said the scientists’ claims should change attitudes towards abortion and the practice of it – suggestions that were swiftly rejected by the country’s biggest abortion provider, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

The lead author of the controversial article is British professor Stuart Derbyshire, who has acted as a consultant to the Pro-Choice Forum in the UK and Planned Parenthood, a leading American pro-choice organisation.

In 2006, he wrote in the British Medical Journal that avoiding talking to women seeking abortions about foetal pain was ‘sound policy based on good evidence that foetuses cannot experience pain’.

But in the JME article, he and American medic John Bockmann say there is now ‘good evidence’ that the brain and nervous system are sufficiently wired up by 18 weeks for the foetus to feel pain.

Specifically, it has been thought that the cortex, the outer brain layer that deals with sensory information, is not developed enough for pain to register.

As a result, ‘many medical bodies… state that pain is not possible before 24 weeks’ gestation’. However, recent studies clearly show ‘that the consensus is no longer valid’, they argue.

One study found an adult with an extensively damaged cortex could still feel pain.

The two medics say their own ‘stark differences’ on the morality of abortion ‘should not interfere with discussion of whether foetal pain is possible’.

Given recent advances in understanding, ‘acting as if we have certainty’ that foetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks ‘flirts with a moral recklessness that we are motivated to avoid’.

Their conclusions raise grave questions for the UK’s abortion industry, which carried out 218,281 terminations in 2018 – almost a quarter (23 per cent) of all pregnancies. About 6,000 abortions are carried out annually at 18 weeks or later.

Professor Derbyshire and Dr Bockmann advise: ‘Given the evidence that the foetus might be able to experience something like pain during later abortions, it seems reasonable that the clinical team and the pregnant woman are encouraged to consider foetal analgesia [pain relief].’

But Clare Murphy, of BPAS, said: ‘The most comprehensive review of this issue to date concluded a foetus cannot experience pain before 24 weeks.

‘There is nothing in this paper which would lead to a change in practice.’ Dr Anthony McCarthy, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: ‘A society that claims to take seriously animal pain should not shrink from confronting pain inflicted on young human beings in the name of ‘choice’.

‘Making death painless for the one killed does not, however, mean that taking life is thereby justified.’

Pro-life MP Fiona Bruce said: ‘Given developing views and research on foetal pain, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ guidance on this issue in relation to abortion – which is now nearly ten years old – should be reviewed.’

Cross-bench peer Lord Alton, who is part of a parliamentary inquiry into foetal pain, said: ‘This new evidence adds further pressure on Parliament to urgently review our current abortion time limit. We last had a proper debate on time limits in 2008.’

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists did not respond to a request for comment.”

 

 

No abortion takes place without a growing child being killed

To all MPs due to vote again in that attack upon the unborn child.

How very convenient for those voting in favour of making it even more possible to kill a child in the womb to piously object to images showing what in fact does happen when an unborn child is put to death —even dismembered in order for this to take place. And yes, it is killing – no abortion happens without a preterm, girl or boy child being put to death.

And of course, from  those indifferent to the plight of the unborn child the protest has come — about “extreme language” — typically from Andrew Little — with protests about graphic images of what actually happens when a child not yet born is put to death, deliberately.

Since when has telling the truth become extreme? Only when those wishing  to dodge the reality of the deliberate ending of the life of a woman’s growing son or daughter want to quieten the opposition… and to disparage it.

Jacinda Ardern’s excuse for protesting against the photos which show what the result is when a growing baby (calling it  a foetus doesn’t dodge this reality ) is deliberately killed is apparently on the basis  that this may upset some women who have had abortions.

One can join them in their grief for the choices they have made – and many never really recover from this regret and sadness. Many, in fact wish they had not been persuaded into an abortion which troubled them, even at the time.

But if such graphic photos make it possible for more women, and the men involved, to realise that not just a woman is involved — but another, quite separate little human life with a beating heart, and  tiny limbs, living an independent existence inside what should be the shelter of its mother’s womb —then this is an important step in facing the long overdue fact that so many find it convenient to ignore…that when two human lives are at stake, it is simply not a moral decision to completely discard the rights of the most vulnerable and helpless of all our children.

Why in fact has there never been provided an advocate for the unborn child— particularly given that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has long been viewed as indifferent to this quite separate, special, needy little life?

In countries like America, the pro-life movement is gaining enormous traction. Scans in particular showing the growing child have brought home to so many the very real person-hood of that child,

And how ironic that in this increasingly and damagingly “liberal” country we’re now dominated by a Prime Minister who seems to have no idea that it is not up to her and associated political oligarchies to impose legislation on the people of the country.

In any real democracy— as in Switzerland  —proposed law changes should come from the people — not top-down from those like the self-willed Ardern.

Save the whales? Save the beach forests? Save the planet? On all the trendy issues of the day the liberal Left can be relied upon but not to save the lives of our most defenceless human beings.

Shame on those voting on the intent to make abortion even wore widespread in this country.

And thank you to all those MPs who refuse to support this extremist and immoral legislation.

© Amy Brooke

Ardern can talk the leg off an iron pot, but…

Jacinda Ardern is now well-known for ignoring emails – as these women point out,  in spite of the fact that her website simply indicates a delay in answering.

https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2020/02/open-letter-dear-jacinda-when-does-human-life-begin/

Many of us have been waiting for answers on important topics ever since the last election.

No surprises there.

Our Prime Minister can  talk the leg off an iron pot – but her performance is decidedly lacklustre  – and evasive.

Childhood’s End –  propagandising and frightening vulnerable children?

Childhood’s End propagandising and frightening vulnerable children?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/cultural-notes-3/

This disgraceful state of affairs can legitimately be argued to be a form of emotional and mental abuse… An excusable invasion of the world of childhood.

 

© 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.

What happens when the climate change bullies get going?

What happens when the climate change bullies get going?

Don’t miss the youtube interview with Professor Judith Curry. She decided herself to resign from her university post, after having been vilified and abused because of her climate-change-critical views.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eg_I8QypcvM&feature=youtu.be