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

 

 

*Why* is our NZGovernment shockingly failing to protect Dr Anne-Marie Brady?

 *Why* is our NZ government shockingly failing to protect Dr Anne-Marie Brady? Peter Hatcher, Sydney Morning Herald

What are you all doing, our elected representatives, to address this disgraceful situation?

No longer safe: Researcher harassed by China in her own country … Peter Hatcher … Sydney Morning Herald

What has happened to this country when a  scholar of the calibre of Dr Anne-Mare Brady, well-known and well-respected internationally, is, together with her family  being threatened, her home and office broken into, with pressure on the University of Canterbury to sack her – even having her car tampered with – all very obviously because of  Communist Chinese annoyance  – with  our coalition government, headed by the caring Jacinda Ardern and a greatly changed Winston Peters apparently indifferent to what is happening –  being offered  no public support whatever?

Remember the shocking incident of Chris Finlayson, former Minister in charge of the SIS (our Security Intelligence Services) rubbishing Anne-Marie’s warnings about what was happening in this country –  because of the well-targeted penetration of Communist Chinese influence?  Disgraceful.

If the SIS itself behaves in such a cavalier fashion when it comes to the protection of a very important and brave New Zealander, then  this country has become a basket case.

Many have been arguing  this for some time – on  by no means negligible evidence.

Where is there one single member of Parliament taking urgency on this issue, raising well overdue questions about why this is happening – and why an official protest has not been made to the Chinese Embassy?

Why are you MPs not asking  why  Dr Brady is not being offered the highest possible protection?

Why do you  apparently consider it acceptable that she is no longer safe – and that her overseas colleagues are now being harassed?

Let’s have some answers  from you…

 

Amy Brooke – Convenor – the 100Days – Claiming  Back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/no-longer-safe-researcher-harassed-by-china-in-her-own-country-20190128-p50u1n.html

Not good thinking, Fran – who trusts the media?

Not good thinking, Fran – who trusts the media?

It’s a very strange suggestion from Fran O’Sullivan, long dug in as a New Zealand Herald columnist and named in the New Year’s Honours list as an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, that the government should be involved in funding the media. New Zealanders like to be generous with their congratulations. But most would argue that the government already has its tentacles reaching into too many areas of our national life. Arguably, her suggestion is an especially dubious proposition, given the potential of the media to be highly partisan – an issue already causing worldwide concern.

Well worth reading is ”Rex Murphy’s: ‘Time is wrong. Today’s journalists are not ‘guardians of the truth’   Contemporary journalism is frequently as wayward as the social media it deplores. It has long since given up any attempt to be objective.’ ” See below. *

New Zealanders have longed regarded the Honours nominations with mixed feelings, some as highly deserving, some raising eyebrows, baffling.  Most would celebrate the one given to that outstanding philanthropist, Sir Stephen Tindall, Knight Great Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit    – and to other some deserving candidates. But there are always those  that are debatable, some viewed as politicised choices – such as the highly controversial Lloyd Geering, who, while professing to be Christian, repudiated the central tenants of Christian teaching  – and then had Honours heaped upon him, initially by Helen Clark’s Labour government.  The extraordinary succession of these that Geering received was topped when, as recently as 2009, his previous Honours awards were elevated to that of Tindall’s – Knight Great Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

However, this former minister’s highly opiniated stance has been regarded  as  extraordinary for a man who apparently decided that his views on the Resurrection were superior to those of  the apostles of Christ’s day  – as well as those of  the hundreds of millions of individuals down through the centuries who repudiated any notion that Christ was either a knave or a delusionist – and who stood by St Paul’s simple assertion that the truth of Christianity depends upon the reality of the Resurrection.

Lloyd Geering decided otherwise. And of course individuals are free to believe what they like, rightly or wrongly. But whether it was a realistic decision of his to still claim to be a Christian – when this depends upon its millennia-held truth  –  even if his stance  was basically fudged as his “belonging to the Christian tradition”  – and, more recently,  as an atheist  a   “non-theist”  – his nomination became arguably an untenable choice. Very many New Zealanders regarded Geering as having done an enormous amount of damage to Christian belief – particularly because of his still confusingly claiming to be inside the Church – rather than a more appropriate acknowledgement of where he had in reality arrived – repudiating it. He acknowledges he sees no point praying -“There’s nobody up there to answer them.” His out of left field preference rejecting the importance of the individual nation state safeguarding its interests in favour of the concept of One World Government would certainly mirror Helen Clark’s long maintained socialist philosophy.

Society has always had its mavericks and its eccentrics. But when they challenge, with no basis for proof, the beliefs and values that underpin and stabilise our society, they do not usually have Honours upon Honours heaped on them.  What these signified, in the eyes of many, is that his views were meeting with political approval at its highest Left-wing level in this country. On form, he regards the anti-the West UN as doing a great job. As with others who, in the eyes of many have been dubious recipients of the awards – including businessmen, politicians, and sportspeople  – the selection process appears to so often depend upon the priorities, or the agenda, of the government of the day.

When Fran O Sullivan uses her own Honours listing to argue that   governments have a responsibility in addressing how journalism is funded, she strays into the grey area of special pleading – as a journalist herself at the time when public perception of the media, at an all-time low, means that even major media corporations are losing the advertisers that fund them.  Although she states that “this doesn’t mean that the government should step in and run media…“ her argument that “a public-private partnership could be set up in some of these areas in the same way it’s made to creative arts ” will be regarded by many as a more than dubious proposition.

Government- funded print and on-line media, no matter the nature of the arrangement, is simply not acceptable. Neither our government-backed broadcasting nor television is regarded as producing an even-handed, quality product. On the contrary, standards are viewed as having markedly declined, and continuing to do so. Moreover, thanks to liberal government backing, the “creative arts” she instances have long become monopolised by sharp-elbowed in-groups of the Left distributing the literary grants among themselves and their politicised fellow travellers – while blacklisting authors and artists who will not toe their politicised line.  It is an important and relevant contention that all taxpayer funding should be removed from these well-heeled cliques, and that it should be left to the public to decide which writers and artists they choose to support on the basis of merit alone – not on their politicised agenda.

Miss O’Sullivan’s plea for government funding for the media within which she works – or even for government-owned entities such as the New Zealand Super Fund and ACC to take a stake in media companies “to ensure they were locally owned”  – will not meet the approval test of the man in the street – nor the highly intelligent home-maker – nor all those in the trades and professions  already fed up with the ever-increasing burden of government edicts, the increasing new areas of taxation – and the mounting compliance issues. Faced with a future prospect of the media “explaining” and supporting these – to satisfy the government of the day – is unacceptable.  If there is no such thing as a free lunch, O’Sullivan’s wish list is more than unrealistic. She should well know that bargains are not made on the basis of something for nothing.

Her contention is that “We’ve got to have media that acts in New Zealand’s interests….and it would be great to have a government that valued that.” But that  real thinking concerning what New Zealand’s interests really are should never be left to the media, nor to successive governments of the day, each very much with their own agenda – and each long wooing flattered or compliant journalists to help achieve this. Moreover, when the flagrant bias of our media is already so obvious in relation to the stance of highly politicised editorialists and journalists – particularly so in relation to the fact that they themselves are often quite culpably ignorant in areas where their research is far from in-depth – then the prospect of journalists being leaned even more upon by governments of the day is ominous.  The standard of most of today’s columnists is basically abysmal.

Examples? The complete lack of genuine debate,  or even well-substantiated media writing in relation to the ever-ongoing gravy train of treaty settlements  pouring into an already $40 billion Maori economy –  many now well argued to be on fraudulent grounds. That these grossly politicised settlements have long deprived the country of vital funding into health, housing and other grossly under-funded areas has been arguably a disgrace. Similarly, with the almost totally one-sided presentation of the highly dubious, man-made global warming claim – long well-challenged in reputable publications overseas – but where the New Zealand media have locked themselves into an over-comfortable relationship with the global warming cultists within this country.

Flying in the face of our media establishment’s claim to objective reporting and impartiality, its palpable bias is almost ludicrous, when one is faced with: “Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do not intend to provide a venue for denials or hoax advocacy. That applies equally to the stories we will publish in”Quick! Save the planet” and to our moderation standards for reader comments.”

Quick! Save the planet…” ? The claim of the editorial writer who produced such nonsense to promote “robust debate” that is completely its opposite is not only doubly ludicrous – it is childish. It brings me back to Fran O’Sullivan’s virtual plea – which could well be titled –“Quick! Save the media.”

We already know what the public response to this would be. New Zealanders, with good reason, are walking away from their mainstream media and the flagrant bias with which, insultingly they have long been treated. Even the ability to allow for public feedback and debate in relation to most columnists’ and editors’ pronouncements has been largely removed. Space for readers’ comments has largely gone –dissent is not encouraged. Editors reject from correspondents letters with which they don’t agree. Robust debate, as this ridiculous Stuff notification so well highlights, is largely a thing of the past, as far as our media giants are concerned.

There is far better material now available for public information and debate away from the former long monopoly of the giant media corporations, and their day is arguably over – as everyone knows – apart from those still wedded to a new Utopia – or to a past with far more rigorous standards in journalism – a past that has long gone.*

© Amy Brooke. Buy my highly relevant book “The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.” Available through Amazon’s Kindle – or directly from my website  – http://www.amybrooke.co.nz

SHARE or LIKE us to support our move to Claim Back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz.  And DONATE to help!   Thank you!  

See – https://100daystodemocracy.wordpress.com/donations-2/

* https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-time-is-wrong-todays-journalists-are-not-guardians-of-the-truth#comments-area

”Rex Murphy: Time is wrong. Today’s journalists are not ‘guardians of the truth’.Contemporary journalism is frequently as wayward as the social media it deplores. It has long since given up any attempt to be objective.”

Rex Murphy
December 28, 2018
1:06 PM EST

”Time, that tattered, shrunken revenant of a once-popular news magazine, continues in its endless decline to delude itself that it has either the authority or the competence to name the “Person of the Year.” Brilliantly it named journalists — “The Guardians” — as 2018’s collective heroes, with Jamal Khashoggi given pride of place on the once-iconic cover. Time neglected to check on Khashoggi and now finds that it nominated a Qatar stooge, whose columns were midwifed by officers in the Qatar government, and whose “journalistic” career was but a distracting pendant to his many more serious activities, latterly as an anti-Saudi lobbyist, nephew to the one-time world’s biggest arms dealer, and a host of other shadowy mésalliances. The neatest summary I have read of Khashoggi, the journalist, is: “a highly-partisan operative who worked with a handler to publish propaganda at the behest of the Emirate of Qatar … in other words, an agent of influence.”

”Great cover photo for a Time “guardians of truth” issue.

”A highly partisan operative who worked with a handler to publish propaganda

”As far as journalists collectively being honoured with the ascription “guardians,” that surely cannot apply in North America or Europe if we take most of their coverage of Donald Trump as the testing ground. Trump journalism will some day earn its place in medical literature, side by side with malarial fever and LSD as engines of hallucination and fitful nightmares.

”Throw in the scandal saga of Der Spiegel, whose star investigative reporter, Claas Relotius, has been proven to be an industrial-scale fraud, a fantasist fictionist, who gulled Der Spiegel and its readers for years, and is now the face for “fake news” worldwide, and ask again how journalists could even be considered the heroes of 2018? The Relotius problem was correctly described in a Facebook post as “a product of an absurdly leftist writers’ fraternity that is increasingly seldom prepared to leave its own convenient moral comfort zone in favour of the facts.”

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=167fd942fdee3887&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1> Der Spiegel reporter Claas Relotius, who has admitted to fabricating stories, is seen during an award ceremony in Munich, Germany, on March 27, 2014. Ursula Dueren/dpa/AP

”Journalism is frequently as wayward as the social media it ritually deplores, propelled by a lust-like drive to the parts of a story that accord with its prejudices and predispositions. It has long since replaced the attempt to be objective with a commitment to activism and advocacy. Much of contemporary journalism does not report on the game. It sees itself as part of the game — it seeks to massage opinion, reinforce favoured perspectives, take down its “enemies” and shield its heroes.

”There is an old word, not seen much in modern writing, quite possibly in near full decay from lack of use. Which is a shame for it still remains possibly the only full semantic vehicle for certain phenomena. The word is incompossible, and its meaning (taken here from the Oxford English Dictionary) is: adj. – Unable to exist if something else exists. Two things are incompossible when the world of being has scope enough for one of them, but not enough for both.

”Much of contemporary journalism does not report on the game. It sees itself as part of the game

”To illustrate the meaning, I offer a few sentences: Environmentalism and journalism are incompossible. Hatred of and contempt for Donald Trump and honest reporting on him are incompossible.

”Place the adjective environmental to govern the noun journalism and the former swallows up, nullifies, extinguishes quite the latter. What we may call real journalists on the global warming file are, to use a familiar category, on the very sharp end of the endangered species list. The majority of environmental journalists are a choir in perfect harmony on a one-note score, the settled-science symphony of the IPCC and Al Gore.

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=167fd942fdee3887&attid=0.2&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1> This combination photo provided by Time magazine shows its four covers for its 2018 “Person of the Year.”

”Trump journalism is obsessive, manic and unboundedly adversarial. Much of it is wish-fantasy in print or online. The evidence was clear from the night of his election, when that great organ of higher reportage, The New York Times, was giving Mr. Trump an eight-per-cent chance of victory, and poor Hillary a wild 92 per cent. Error of that magnitude doesn’t spring from faulty polling or inadequate assessment of the public mood.

”It is incorruptible evidence that a once great newspaper had chosen to report what its owners and reporters wanted to see as reality, its fantasy of reality, as the reality. They had cut all anchors to objectivity and fact to drift on the currents of advocacy and wish-fulfillment. On that same night, as the results came in on the networks, people saw on the crestfallen faces of the anchor “guardians” for whom “speaking truth to power” is their prayer and motto, just how unwelcome the real truth was, when their power to declare what that truth should be, had been denied them.

”This was infallibly not the year to declare journalists the heroes of our time. but then, it was Time that declared them so, so who, really, thought they were?”

© Amy Brooke – SHARE or LIKE us to support our move to Claim Back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz.  And DONATE to help!   Thank you!  

See – https://100daystodemocracy.wordpress.com/donations-2/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jacinda Ardern’s priorities aren’t most New Zealanders.

Men count, too, Jacinda.  As do our littlest people.

There are two main areas in which Jacinda Arden’s shortfalls in thinking are potentially, when they’re not already, damaging to the country. One is with regard to her party’s socio-economic agenda, very much contributing to the fact that among the 35 countries in the OECD we have fallen to second worst, with business confidence understandably low. Her new tag of Taxinda Ardern is not unearned.  The other is her unsubtle push to enable even more babies to be killed before birth – an obvious consequence –  if what many New Zealanders rightly regard as a horrific procedure is removed from the Crimes Act.

In recent years, even hardened pro-abortion doctors have walked away from what they eventually found an accumulatively sickening procedure –See https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/abortionist-who-performed-over-1200-abortions-becomes-pro-life/10155873761783728

Yet the attack continues against pro-life doctors for following their consequences.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-wins-landmark-pro-life-conscience-rights-case-in-norway

The unbalanced representation of the Abortion Supervisory Committee is highly questionable. That there are apparently no very much-needed conservative thinkers  there, among these government appointees, has doubtless contributed to our sad statistics of over 13,000 unborn children put to death last year. Shockingly, there are no males on the panel, although a man is as much involved in the creation of a new life as is a woman. Moreover, this all-women committee, especially a committee of liberally-inclined women, is more than unbalanced: Who is there on it to represent the rights of a child already conceived? And when a growing infant is now basically regarded as disposable by the usual extremist groups (always a stroppy minority, to whose radicalised demands our politicians so typically capitulate) what is disregarded are the consequences for a society which treats the unborn child so cavalierly as killing it – and disregards the emotional pain and guilt so many women, given no other real help or choices, will feel for the rest of their lives.

For all Ms Ardern’s claim that she simply wants abortion removed from the Crimes Act, where it resides for very good reason, abortion can never be a simple health issue, so she should stop fudging this fact. The law is now farcical when by far the majority of women wanting an abortion can simply advance a mental health issue, and end up in the obliging hands of those with no wish to disbelieve them. We’re all well aware that the widely-used excuse of the mental health of the mother provides a virtual state of abortion on demand. Moreover, no real help by any government funded agency is offered to desperate women who fundamentally do not want to take this step. Why not?  The government needs to be challenged on the fact that all it offers is death, death after one-sided “counselling”?

What very real help does come is from the voluntary, non-government funded pro-life organisations that work indefatigably to help both worried women and the babies that many of them long to keep. They deserve all our tangible support.

At least let’s have more intellectual honesty from those agitating for abortion to be removed from the Crimes Act, well knowing that the deliberate killing of an unborn child, already someone’s son or daughter, is involved. But then pro-abortionists have always been very evasive when dodging any question of moral or ethical liability.  We all know that the perennially pushed propaganda claiming  – “a woman’s right” – deliberately dodges the fact that the rights of another human being are now also very much at stake  – perhaps even that of another female child on her  own way now to eventual womanhood, with her own right to life.

And of course the rights of the father are also involved. Ignoring this has seen some fathers desperately asking for a son or daughter to be allowed to survive, broken-hearted that they may never see, nor get to hold their own child. So why is abortion wrongly represented as “a woman’s right“alone?  No woman conceives a child alone. And no-one (yet) advocates  “ a woman’s right “to kill her child after birth. So why pre-birth?

We are all very well acquainted with the untruths abortionists have always felt necessary to deal in. At what stage do they become lies? Certainly, using euphemisms to gloss over the actual facts  of what  happens to a tiny  child  both if it is dismembered to be removed  – or if it is born alive and then disposed of – should have alerted any Western society to  the intrinsic badness of this act.

We are all aware that initially there was a total denial of the reality of a human being now on its way after conception until science challenged this. I recall the outrage which greeted a very brave Dunedin MP  years ago when, an effort to illustrate to his colleagues the reality of the unborn child, he held  up a tiny, already perfectly formed unborn baby of about three months,  completely recognisable as such, in a test tube. The howls of outrage that ensued were a sobering reminder of the venom with which, even today, so many pro-abortionists attack those arguing for protection for these most vulnerable of all human beings. No doubt Brian MacDonnell’s proof that this unborn child was demonstrably not “ just a mass of red cells”- the most fashionably invoked phrase at the time, contributed to the outrage expressed. The truth of an issue is never palatable to those profiting from this to be withheld.

I was reminded of this recently when one of New Zealand’s practising abortionists had the gall to claim that the personhood of the unborn child is not recognised until birth. This nonsense is just playing with words. Its intrinsic untruth is shown by the fact that when a premature baby is born not at approximately the normal birth time, of 40 weeks – but even as early as around 23 – 24 weeks – the fact that this is a living child, a son  or daughter, is never disputed!  Extraordinary efforts  by dedicated staff  are then made  to save this baby  – while another  late term abortion may be performed on a child the same age  in a theatre next door  – a situation which one doctor has described as utterly barbaric.

So what is driving Ardern’s agenda – out of step as she is  with the tide of revulsion now growing overseas as the reality of the effect of an abortion on the living, intrauterine child has now bought been brought home to so many – not only through ultrasound scans? That abortion,  in the eyes of many,  is the act of murdering the most vulnerable human being of all is beyond dispute.  The damage this killing has done not only to individuals …to desperate now-mothers persuaded that this is a mere surgical procedure, but are later haunted with regret for the rest of their lives, is swept under the carpet.  It has extended consequences for all those involved in this act of deliberate killing. And as people have become  better informed with regard to  Family Planning’s shocking  practices, including the considerable money made out of selling of the results of abortions  –  the dismembered parts of an unborn child –  more horrific revelations have come to light. The facts of  Dr Gosnell’s practice has shocked the conscience of America.  They are now publicised in a film, Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, showing in theatres which pro-abortions are trying to have closed down. See: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gosnell-film-convinces-abortion-agnostic-to-recognize-murder-of-the

Given the compliance of the Law Commission, with its also highly contestable recommendation that  abortion should be removed from the Crimes Act, it is time for the all too silent majority – who too often leave an important fight to others – to now stand up to be counted. It has never been easier to ring Parliament (04 817 9999) to be asked to be passed through to the office of a party leader, your electorate MP -or any other of our supposed representatives. Nothing is simpler than to then ask for your  strong objections to leaving the unborn child even more defenceless than it is to be noted – and acted upon.

Alternatively, we can do nothing. But then we will ultimately have to face the consequences of this, too.

For next time.  She promised that taxes would not be raised… And does she really believe, after all these failed precedents that socialism can be taken seriously as a workable philosophy? 

© Amy Brooke.  Read my “The 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.

 

 

 

Whom do you believe, Dr Anne-Marie or politicians?

Whom would you believe, Dr Anne-Marie Brady on Communist China’s influence – or our pathetically performing politicians?

The marvel is that any New Zealanders at all still bother to listen to politicians. They, and the mainstream media, now make a pretty hopeless pair. And as, like most, I make a point of not wasting time by watching  politicians perform for a TV audience, it was strictly by accident that I came across the Q&A programme this last Sunday evening. I stayed because of the promise of the appearance of the brave and well-informed Dr Anne-Marie Brady, held in well-deserved respect world-wide because of her deep knowledge of the way that China’s Communist Party – the CCP – interferes in the internal affairs of other countries.

What it has achieved so far, to a culpable extent that would never have occurred if our politicians had not been so intellectually lazy, and culpably under-informed, is what New Zealanders urgently need to wake up to. But shockingly, the reaction of Corin Dann’s political hangers-on, his poorly chosen audience, was incredible. Basically, Dr Brady’s astute, thoroughly objective and well-balanced account of the way (and extent to which) China’s Communist leadership has worked to influence the political decision-making of our major parties was simply derided.

They scoffed. Their ignorance, or assumed ignorance, was simply astounding. What was most striking is that what came across was the level of stupidity in reaction to her fine and timely presentation. It was so marked that it can only bring politicians, plus its  in-group hanger-ons and the political commentariat into even more contempt.

Yet Anne-Marie’s Brady’s scholarly investigation of what exactly is at stake in relation to the targeting of New Zealand, Australia, the UK and other Western democracies is probably unequalled. She has written extensively in books and well-respected publications, and it was for this reason that I invited her some years ago to be a keynote speaker at the annual Summer Sounds Symposium which I founded and ran for a decade and a half to open up genuine debate on the important issues facing this country – both internally and externally. Attending, together with her Chinese husband and children, we were left with no doubt, after her incisive and well-substantiated contribution, that she has become a world expert on this question.

Moreover, because of the deep concern in other countries about the extent to which Communist China has already interfered in attempts to gain control of important businesses and strategic assets, as well as influencing the political process, every one of these countries,  except New Zealand, is now investigating what has been happening and what extra safeguards need now to be mounted to protect our democracies.

When Corin Dann’s Q & A lightweight audience basically dismissed what she said,  not only was their ignorance – or their unwillingness to face up to what has been happening on their watch – a revelation. It also reminded me of Minister Chris Finlayson’s inexcusable dismissal of Dr Brady’s findings when questioned at a public   meeting about China’s soft influence in this country.

https://croakingcassandra.com/2017/09/20/the-political-cone-of-silence-with-slurs/

What shocked many then listening is that Finlayson at the time was Minister in Charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service – and should have been expected to know that Dr Brady’s published research is impeccable. His apparent attempt to personally rubbish her, and to dismiss any suggestion of Communist Chinese influence in this country raises questions about what our political parties are up to.  We all know that our  government’s first duty is the defence of the realm. Yet the then Minister in charge of our security services appeared to be spectacularly ignorant on such an important issue.

Finlayson has not been alone – and not only are National Party spokespersons, present and past, some of whom have had lucrative, special relationships with Chinese organisations   – arguably  none of which would be now permitted to survive without the tacit approval of Communist Party leadership –  dodging the question of just what has been happening.  Jacinda Ardern, who apparently likes to address her followers as Comrades, has also dismissed the fact of the CCP’s involvement in our affairs.

A few other important articles have appeared, particularly, particularly in the New Zealand Herald, and yet the guest speakers on this Q&A programme appeared to be spectacularly ignorant of the well substantiated facts they contain. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11958211

Inevitably, the question is going to be asked right around the country about the extent to which individual politicians have been unduly influenced by the promise of party donations and personal profit through interactions with business associations basically under the control of the CCP.

It’s not the first time that questions have been asked about the extent of the very generous funding of our political parties – as with the National Party coffers pre-election. John Key’s support by wealthy Chinese businessman and his efforts to change our flag – removing the Union Jack, – also raised eyebrows.

In my own  book “The 100 Days –Claiming Back New Zealand  – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians”,  I included a chapter titled State Assets, New Zealand and Chinese ownership.  In it I noted what  a highly educated New Zealand Chinese, who many years ago had protested at the butchery of Tiananmen Square, had read at the time in a Weekend Herald interview with the Chinese Ambassador, and consequently felt both fear and disgust. The reason? The ambassador’s push for military ties between New Zealand and Communist China.

It is no doubt news to most New Zealanders that military to military cooperation between China and New Zealand has developed quickly in recent years…as is also a fact that during Helen Clarke’s time in office,  several dozen high-ranking military Communist Chinese delegations were shown around our own military bases and made privy to our defence capabilities – regarded by concerned and knowledgeable commentators as highly inadequate – which no doubt the Chinese have also noted.

These and other issues were raised at the time  Communist China was involved in buying up our government debt in record volumes,  and it was mooted that at least half our major New Zealand firms were going to end up in the hands of what are basically commercially-fronted, but Communist China-underpinned companies.  Questions were being asked what the implications are for New Zealand when China begins to intrude more and more into our affairs, already exercising pressure on the Falun Gong within this country, and incredibly enough, suggesting joint military exercises. How soon, it was asked, can we expect to see Chinese warships anchored in New Zealand ports?

If these questions seem alarmist we need to make ourselves more fully informed about what exactly is happening. Why has the OIO  endorsed virtually all the CCP- backed buy up of our prime farmland – with questions now being raised about its possible use for military purposes?

For more – read my book  with its well-researched over-view of what has gone wrong  in so many  areas of what was once a far more stable and prosperous democracy –  and how we can strategically work to control our politicians. *

For those New Zealanders with an understandable distaste for now backing any of our political parties – once burnt,  twice shy – its analysis of what has been going wrong in this country, and why –  shows the very achievable way forward for New Zealanders to  ourselves make the decisions determining our directions – not what are now regarded as basically under informed, incompetent and, in some cases, even, possibly corrupt politicians.

Our political class has betrayed this country, and Dr Brady deserves all our support.

*

Join us to help claim it back! See www.100days.co.nz

Amy Brooke – “The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. “ *

 

Operationally inadequate? Call Centres unacceptable wait times.

Operationally inadequate? AIRNZ, Southern Cross, Vodafone, the major banks, power and communication companies?

Contrary to the mantra that competition is always good, the now constant practice of cutting corners in tendering for contracts has led in many cases to substandard results – and poor outcomes for the public.  At least as equal a deterioration in service to the public at large has been the push by major corporations to maximise profits by under-resourcing their customer service centres. New Zealanders are all now well and truly exposed to the tedium and time-wasting procedures involved in trying to call our corporate giants.

We are familiar with the outcome…that those wishing to call these corporations have to jump through the hoops, instructed to follow through a sequence of numbers, selecting those which take the caller to another sequence where further choices are delineated – and so on – possibly without encountering even one with any relation at all to the query which prompted the call.

The wait to hear back from an operator to gather the required information too often becomes not only unacceptably long – but basically insulting to customers. So is the repetitive sales pitch, relentlessly forced upon those waiting. The conclusion to which many New Zealanders have now come is that the waste of their valuable time – and the repetitive procedures they are required to undertake while holding a phone, waiting to get needed information –  are not only irritating: it has all become completely unacceptable.

Add on the unwanted, third-rate musical trash forced upon customers unable to choose to avoid this – song after song played on – a form of virtual mental torture to those who would never choose to voluntarily listen to these maddening impositions – and the time to challenge these substandard practices is now overdue.

What we are faced with is sheer incompetence on the part of these corporations in that they are not meeting the needs of their customers. It is either is an operational failure on their part to not take this into account – or a deliberate avoidance of their responsibility to answer to the public – and to provide a quality service.

Southern Cross,  for example, have a nerve suggesting customers contact them by phone, when one can wait for 20 minutes or longer before hanging up, as not only is time precious, but one is unable, during this time, to take or make other calls. When this process is repeated again throughout the day, with even longer wait times experienced  across the whole spectrum of telecommunication companies, it not only becomes a source of irritation, but one  of increasing stress  – which can be argued to have become a public health issue.

And when, as with other corporate excuses with which we are over-familiar, we hear the usual “due to unexpected caller demand… or “due to higher than usual call ratios…” we are not impressed. What it is all essentially due to is that same cost-cutting – cutting corners – the underemployment of needed staff to swiftly and efficiently answer calls.

Government departments, too, are equally culpable.

The problem, the same as in many areas and in other organisations in this country  lies with those in charge – with management – management in many cases substantially overvalued and substantially overpaid and –  not infrequently –  arguably incompetent.

This whole culture  needs to be increasingly challenged,  what equates to gross mismanagement – the  failure to employ and allocate more staff leading to the failure to provide an efficient service… epitomising a basic lack of respect for the public.

When individuals say they are no longer prepared to tolerate these substandard practices, things will change. The solution lies, as always, in our own hands – in not merely grumbling – but in challenging these substandard practices.

Combined efforts achieve great changes…

 

© Amy Brooke