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

 

 

Nigel Farage – Cometh the hour, cometh the man…


For so many world-wide, Nigel Farage epitomises that one outstanding individual saying “Go no further…” to the system whereby political classes, so often under highly damaging leadership worldwide,  have distorted the democratic process. https://mobile.twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1047058901621981184/video/1

We are now in a similar situation here in New Zealand with  central authority  over the whole of the country –  which equates to government and power without genuine  accountability – merely a recycling of the less damaging-looking political party every three years.

Is everyone happy with this?  If not SHARE, LIKE and support us on Facebook, and at www.100days.co.nz – to at last claim back this country for New Zealanders – from rule by politicians. Yes, it can be done – and we can do it…as always, it’s up to individuals,

The runaway situation with the never-ending treaty claims, some imaginatively reinvented;  some, on good evidence,  arguably fraudulent;  is compounded by the mess the previous National government has got us into.

Over 300 claims for the foreshore and seabed from opportunistic iwi and hapu?  That we, all New Zealanders, will  be required to actually pay the costs of those claiming against us – as usual!  – is  a prime example of the damage caused to this country by top-down government decision-making –  from which the public are routinely  excluded.

You’ll remember the smooth-tongued John Key and the Minister for  Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson – (formerly Ngai Tahu’ s only too successful lawyer)  – assuring the country there would be very little chance of any claims,  because uninterrupted occupation of these relevant areas would be required. Should he/they be answerable to the country for the costly consequences,  either of their naivety – or even incompetence. Or was there another agenda here?

The real issue is that, as usual, this legislation and other damaging legislation was imposed upon the country by our successive governments which, historically, have got most things wrong.

And what about the ramped-up claims by today’s well-paid, radicalised part-Maori (by no means representative of the majority of New Zealanders, both  part-Maori,  European and of other ancestry) that an almost totally inauthentic “Maori” language be compulsorily inflicted upon the country?

That the highly activist Wellington City Council is now squandering ratepayers’ money on rewriting street and other signs in largely reinvented Maori, without the consent of the majority of ratepayers –  with our most important language, English, in much smaller letters below, is almost credible – although it is not the only local government heading in these unsupported directions.

Today’s reinvented te reo, bearing minimal relationship to the genuine Maori language,  and now including very many thousands of completely made-up, supposedly “Maori” words,  is very much part of the constant push by well-funded activists, many also feathering their own nests highly successfully.

However, New Zealanders as a whole are fed up with legislation imposing upon them markedly  damaging directions, while  highly impoverished areas of the economy suffer a severe  lack of funding  – because of the slush funds of political bribery directed towards those iwi on the make.

And while the Labour government is marching even more firmly down the road of political opportunism and other disastrous directions, it is almost incredible that the National Party leader, Simon Bridges, has spoken out so strongly against what is really an issue of national security – long overdue. This is the requirement for all New Zealand immigrants to be required to pledge to respect our democratic values, and obey the laws which uphold these.

All around the world the consequences of allowing open immigration have been disastrous – with increases in violent crime traceable to a newly immigrant population whose radicalised young men show little respect for women,  and with demands from a radicalised Muslim sector for Sharia law.

Politicians get too much wrong –  and we are all suffering the consequences. Those who claim that our leaders know best could not be more wrong – as well we know. History itself is the best proof of this, and only, “Cometh the hour,  cometh the man” has saved us from so much worse.

It is well and truly time to insist what the Swiss long achieved for themselves – Government by the people, for the people, and of the people – not by the politicians – and for the politicians.

Join us to achieve a tipping point of New Zealanders aiming for just this!

Amy Brooke – Convenor: The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. See www.100days.co.nz 

-- 

Goodbye Fairfax and NZME – no loss now…

Goodbye Fairfax and NZME – no loss at all…

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Courage is everything…Check out the outstanding Kapiti Independent News

The excellent Kapiti Independent News puts most other newspapers to shame. No wonder that most media are now so despised.

Without courage, what is left? And what has happened to us as a country that, as formerly happened in the USSR,  much-needed debate is now suppressed, and to speak the truth on important issues now takes an act of courage?

The Kapiti Independent News deserves to be acclaimed by all of us. It stands head and shoulders above our mainstream newspapers right across the country  – earning respect by its support of debate on the now damaging issues of racial preference and discrimination.This Kapiti newspaper’s support of the fine article by courageous Bud Codger brings to mind the phrase  – redeeming the times.  Congratulations to all involved. And don’t miss the below.

http://kapitiindependentnews.net.nz/racism-in-the-universities/#more-63053

Judging from my own experiences in relation to my local newspaper, I’d agree it’s no wonder that, in the public mind, it’s been established that the least-trusted group of individuals in any occupation are  journalists, “ranked below MPs, even, the second least trusted, and behind local council members, lawyers and civil servants, who are all below the half-way mark in a survey of public trust and confidence. ”

That’s no surprise to so many New Zealanders concerned about the directions in which this country is heading, but finding it almost impossible to be able to take part in that underpinning of democracy, public debate, using the forum of letters to the editor. I’m not alone in the long campaign I’ve been waging to challenge the Nelson Mail  in relation to its disgraceful practice of suppressing letters to the editor from well-respected commentators – if the opinions, even the facts that they express, obviously irritate the letters editor – or/and even the actual editor.

My persistent objection to the letters of one highly qualified commentator on treaty issues being ignored has at last seen his letters begin to appear – possibly because I included, in my recent complaint to the Press Council, the constant suppression of his excellent letters, and,  even of a well substantiated article pointing out that so-called facts invoked by two local activists  in relation to  Maori-related historical issues could indeed be challenged. Naturally, he was denied publication. Moreover, invited to give an address  to the Nelson Institute,  he found this recently cancelled, when the Institute, the Nelson City Council and the public library were asked to cancel his address – with the implied threat that there would be public disruption – possibly violence –  “a health and safety issue” – if he was allowed to speak. And I’m referring here to an excellent historian, respected in his field.

Tiring of the constant  suppression of my own letters, challenging left-wing, quite wrong or troubling “facts” presented in the Nelson Mail  (I would write no more than about four a year – given so  much already to juggle – and in particular where others had not highlighted an important issue) I finally submitted a complaint to the Press Council  about the Mail’s suppression of these.

My expectation of support from this body is pretty minimal. Our institutions all over the country are now largely dominated by the Politically Correct, and I recognize from my own time as an independent columnist and commentator on current affairs for the Dominion, and elsewhere, two or three familiar names on the Press Council.

However, one of the facts we need to take on board as individuals in this country, concerned about its very worrying directions, is that it is not good enough to fold up under pressure – or to simply be a pushover (in a friend’s words) – when confronted  by any form of bullying. On the contrary, it is important to make things as difficult as possible for those misusing positions of power.  And this is exactly what too many of today’s journalists are doing – pushing their markedly ” liberal” or radicalized points of view on the public – and then denying the opportunity for public debate.

It wasn’t always the case.  C. P. Scott, the long-standing editor of the Manchester Guardian, summed up the professional duty of a journalist, arguing that the “primary office” of a newspaper is accurate news reporting, saying “comment is free, but facts are sacred“.

Once, when journalism had a code of ethics, reporters would be pulled up short when their personal opinions took precedence over the facts. I recall some fine editors or features editors whom it was a pleasure to know. However, training journalists on an actual paper under the eye of experienced editors gave way to an utterly unnecessary three-year (and more) journalism courses where today’s often highly opinionated and self-regarding editors and reporters learned that their inculcated left-wing and  PC views were to be inflicted on the readers – and that they are free to push their too often half baked opinions – at the expense of the facts.

As usual the Nelson Mail is now holding back my letter in support of historian Bruce Moon.  I very much doubt if the editor has any intention of publishing it, and if this is the case, I will let readers judge for themselves by producing in this journal the letters which obviously offended the tender sense of susceptibilities of editorial staff.

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

 

The real racism, Susan Devoy? Check out Ngai Tahu

The real racism, Susan Devoy? Check out Ngai Tahu

What, Ms Devoy, do scientist and columnist Dr Bob Brockie, MNZM; conservationist Bud Jones, QSM (recognised for years of faithful service – and with a distinguished career as a professional musician); Neil Hayes, QSM, who was awarded a QSM in recognition of his 34 years of continuous involvement in attempting to save the rare and critically endangered NZ Brown Teal (Anas chlorotis) from extinction – have in common?  Neil is a Royal Chartered Environmentalist . Add in, among other highly regarded New Zealanders, the eminent Bruce Moon, the first person to install a computer in a New Zealand University. The answer? They all have been warning what you should be well aware of, in your position, but apparently aren’t.  Or are you just keeping your head down? Whatever; this just isn’t good enough, and your dogmatic utterances are helping to foster divisiveness and dissent.

In a recent Dominion Post column, Bob Brockie brought to public scrutiny the shockingly racist bias and tribal centre-staging which has wormed its way into what should be completely independent centres of learning in this country. What has long been imposed by neo-Marxist activists within the Ministry of Education, blatantly targeting schoolchildren with their damaging propaganda, has now taken an even stronger foothold within our higher institutes of learning.

Dr Brockie illustrated the fact that what was once Britain’s top scientific organisation, the Royal Society – morphing here into the Royal Society of New Zealand – (which is supposed to foster scientific research and provide independent advice on scientific matters, free of political commercial or cultural bias) – is now doing nothing of the sort. Transferring itself into “an academy” in 2010 it appointed representatives of the humanities to its councils – at which stage the alarm bells should have started to ring…because of course these artistic and literary ” councillors” (from  both the government-funded arts and literary circles)  have long been thoroughly partisan and biased – and very much controlled by the politically correct.

Granting themselves an obscure title in the newly invented, inauthentic and ponderous Maori-speak, these advisers called themselves  Te Whainga Aronui o Te Aparangi,  and brought with them the inevitable baggage load of cultural and political activism from the humanities – the centre of subversive activity within our universities in recent decades.  As Dr Brockie points out,  inheriting the essential madness of the French nihilist philosophers, Derrida, Foucault and their disciples,  these  have long argued that there are no such things as facts – that everybody’s opinions are of equal value – “whether those of a quantum physicist or a Stone Age nobody” . I recall, for example, Oxford’s then Marxist English Professor Terry Eagleton maintaining that the novels of Barbara Cartland equalled in value the works produced by the actor, Shakespeare (or, more likely, the 17th Earl of Oxford – cf. Joseph Sobran’s brilliant and scholarly “Alias Shakespeare” – offering a much-needed intellectual challenge to the sheer laziness of a great part of the regurgitated research offered by university humanities departments in recent decades).

It was primarily our universities, particularly the English and Education departments, abandoning their traditional description as faculties, who so thoroughly embraced the sheer fatuity of political correctness, maintaining that people’s beliefs and opinions are of equal value –   (unless of course, they are Christian, in which case they must be disparaged and ridiculed) – and that “decontextualisation” – the meaning of which defies comprehension  – should rule, in literature, rather than what a great writer actually wrote.

At any rate, the real scandal is that this year, the Te Whainga group, whoever they are and whatever this means, are now claiming that the Royal Society, via its current president, Richard Bedford, ”needs to place the Treaty of Waitangi centrally, and bring alongside that inequity and adversity issues in a holistic manner.” As Bob Brockie points out – this is outrageous. The Treaty,  whose real meaning has been so usefully distorted, reinvented and “reinterpreted” by today’s radical propagandists, assisted by lawyers with their eye to the lucrative work involved, “has no place in scientific endeavour. To make it the centrepiece of the Royal Society’s agenda beggars belief.” 

Dr Brockie is right. Moreover, he points to something equally shocking – that Otago University recently proclaimed that the aggressive neo-tribe, Ngai Tahu must be consulted “about all areas of research” before scholars begin their work. “All proposals must be submitted to the office of Maori development”. Staff and students were warned that consultation may take time, so they were advised “to start well in advance of preparing your proposal.” He points out that Otago researchers are looking into everything ” from zeta functions, quantum physics, logistics, dental technology and Roman Law to compositions by Brahms – and rightly asks what expertise Ngai Tahu have in evaluating these research proposals. He also points out that “Ngai Tahu run several commercial companies (with a surplus of many millions annually) and could turn down research that questions or challenges its business motives or motivations.”

Moreover, most of this research is simply not Ngai Tahu’s business. Not only do they have no expertise in judging the value of such research – it is quite appalling that Otago University has acquiesced, as Dr Brockie points out, to such proscriptive, inquisitorial demands”. Shame on my former university.

The time has long gone when universities were once respected as valuable, independent, scholarly institutions operating without fear of bias, even emphasising to their students that their prime value did not lie in facilitating a meal ticket to a future occupation – but in providing the opportunity to research, to explore, to weigh, to learn – in order to advance important discovery, and to aim for the truth of issues. But as Brockie points out “young researchers do not question these moves for fear of being labelled racist and putting their careers at stake.” He is quite right.  What has happened to this country when so many admit they dare not question the highly politicised requirements now dumped on them for fear of losing their jobs?

It’s not only Otago of course, that’s bowing to the pressure of big-money today wielded by the tribes, acquired by compulsion from the taxpayers of this country. The rot is white-anting all our universities. It must be two years ago that a professor friend at Canterbury told me he was warned by an HOD from another department that he had better conjure up some way of touching the forelock towards Ngai Tahu’s imagined” cultural sensitivity” in the courses his department offered – courses having nothing whatsoever to do with racial issues –  because in future any undergraduate hoping to get a degree from Canterbury was going to have to demonstrate that he/she was “culturally sensitive” – whatever this jargon means.

We know of course that this is not intended to be exercised in relation to the values of the majority of our European forebears in this country – but to kowtow towards the radical activism of powerful tribes like the moneyed Ngai Tahu. It is highly doubtful that this virtually bullying activism is even supported by the majority of those of Ngai Tahu descent, apparently largely unaware of what is going on.  On the contrary, it is being pushed by those with their own damaging and egotistical agenda.

What of the findings of these perplexed and imminent New Zealanders, Bud Jones and Neil Hayes, both prominent in their respective fields to the extent of being awarded Queen’s Service Medals? Victoria University, which years ago thoroughly blotted its copybook by refusing to allow the issue of supposed man-made global warming (now conveniently relabelled climate change) to even be debated on its campus is now requiring adherence to this pernicious Vision Matauranga radicalism – i.e. prioritising Maori preferment in utterly irrelevant scientific and academic areas – and requiring staff to explain themselves if they are not doing so! Comparisons with the former totalitarian USSR don’t need to be pointed out.

Described as “racism in the extreme,” as part of this university’s  “2018 learning, teaching, and equity priorities to Te Makuako Aronui” (whatever this, too, means) increased incorporation of Matauranga Maori in courses is required. A senior member of the music department was asked to appear before a panel and explain how he would be incorporating Matauranga Maori into his teaching course subjects –  (“We are talking music department here!…I was pressed into an advisory role… Naturally I reeled at the audacity of an entirely secular university institution making a reprehensible demand on an employee to be a parrot for someone else’s spiritual/religious and racist agenda.  However, on further enquiries it is revealed that many, if not all university departments have the same request in place. i.e.  to incorporate Matauranga Maori into their courses.  The request comes in an ultimate form of  “if not why not” directive.

“I’ve enquired with other former teachers and others: the consensus is: anything implying spiritualism/ religiosity or racism has no place in the university, and probably the University Charter says it explicitly. You cannot comply with this call for racism being incorporated into the school on personal, ethical, and academic grounds. Besides, it is outside your job description to be advocating any spiritual, religious or racial bias into your academic teaching subject. You cannot, nor can you, be a parrot for someone else’s agenda. It is morally reprehensible that the secular academic institution should call on you to do so as well. You {should} decline on academic grounds of integrity!”

What of the recent experience of Bruce Moon?  A retired Canterbury University professorial board member, Bruce has been deeply engaged in studying New Zealand history in his retirement. In his working life Bruce has been a rocket scientist in the UK and Australia. A fellow of the UK Institute of Physics,  a director of the Canterbury University Computer Centre, a national President of the NZ computer Society, an Honorary Fellow of the New Zealand Institute Information Technology Professionals, an officer in the Naval Reserve, Bruce is the author of “Real Treaty; False Treaty – The True Waitangi Story”.

Needless to say, the Nelson Mail, with its tendency to suppress letters with which the letters editor apparently does not agree, has consistently refused to publish Bruce’s letters  – and even articles – correcting quite wrong “facts” advanced by some of Nelson’s notable activists.  It was not until recently when I at last scratched together the time to make an official complaint to the Press Council about the Nelson Mail’s suppression of, or tampering with,  my own letters, citing Bruce’s experience also, that a recent letter of his has actually been published. The quite blatant bias now exhibited by extraordinarily uninformed or even stroppy agendists throughout our mainstream media echoes a lot of what is also happening overseas.

In relation to what has now become a quite blatant activism within the universities, and spreading throughout all other institutions, I’m reminded of the question I put to the eminent historian Paul Johnson nearly two decades in ago when I was fortunate enough to accompany him while he was visiting this country.  I asked him at the time where the attack upon the universities basically came from – specifically that of the post-modernists and the neo-Marxists (basically the same – i.e.  those working towards the imposing of Communism against the West by cultural domination, and spearheaded by the assault against reason by the same nihilist philosophers – or pseudo-philosophers.  Paul answered that this attack was not mounted against the universities – it originated from within the universities. He was of course right. And I recall an excellent lunchtime lecture he gave in Wellington – and the very hostile reception he got from his largely media and university staff audience.

This former editor of the left-wing The New Statesman abandoned the Left in favour of the free market, but his intellectual honesty is such that he would undoubtedly reject today’s corporate capture of the market – and its distortion  – when the excesses of capitalism without conscience are given rein to run riot.
Today, among those super-wealthy capitalist organisations now doing just this are some of our wealthiest tribes, virtually blackmailing universities and private institutions to prioritise their tribal interests ahead of the common good.

You’re paid by the taxpayers of this country, Susan Devoy. So we would like to know why New Zealand’s Relations Conciliator is apparently turning a blind eye to what is actually happening? Are you really so ignorant, or uninformed that you have no idea what is taking place ?  – of facts which now manage to get at least some, if woefully inadequate coverage in a mainstream media which for too long now has basically ill-served the country. And throwing around unjustified charges of racism, when fine individuals who’ve earned the right to be listened to, and respected,  point out what is really racist – and  are ignored, simply isn’t good enough.

What is basically racist – the form of virtual blackmail by now very wealthy iwi, including, in fact particularly Ngai Tahu – has reached disgraceful proportions. Ironically, on very good evidence, including historian Alan Everton’s excellent research, this largely European-derived tribe should never have got its lucrative 1998 settlement (one of the last of a number of now never-ending power and money grabs by this greedy tribe that lawyer Chris Finlayson wangled for them).  It was a settlement repudiated by highly respected members of the tribe, such as Dame Whetu Tirikatane-Sullivan, pointing out that a previous full and final settlement had been unanimously agreed to. However, the dominating, reportedly only even one-sixteenth Maori, Tipene O’Regan, apparently persuaded Finlayson to represent their new, contrived claim – already previously rejected by a Maori Affairs Select Committee.  Finlayson was viewed as largely instrumental in pushing this claim through.  However, was this instance of what many public perceive as the only too common practice of lawyers competing against each other – rather than prioritizing the justice of a claim?

Finlayson is on record as saying, in a speech in 2009:  “I used to love going to the office in the morning when we were suing the Crown…Ngai Tahu mastered the  art of aggressive litigation. . .  It was ‘Take no prisoners’ and it resulted in a good settlement “. For Ngai Tahu, yes, but what about the truth of their claim?

It would not be appropriate for this lawyer to gloat too much. Later, the Crown lawyers virtually admitted they were a pushover. They had no historians on board – from memory, they admitted their lawyers had background degrees in Geography and French. They not only accepted Ngai Tahu’s word in relation to quite wrong “facts” – they were not allowed to even follow the normal practice of cross-examination. Tipene O’Regan even managed to successfully make the ridiculous claim that confrontation was not the Maori way…

This Ngai Tahu settlement was later described as a swindle – a view many share. The select committee whose job it should have been to scrutinise it was told by the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations at the time, Doug Graham, that their job was to simply basically endorse it, as the original bill had been signed by him and the then Prime Minister, Jim Bolger. In other words, it was never subjected to the proper, rigorous scrutiny which should have occurred.

 And unfortunately, also, in the eyes of well informed historians and researchers, the Ngai Tahu lawyer Chris Finlayson  was subsequently appointed Minister for Treaty Negotiations, and  has been viewed to be far too uncritical of highly fanciful claims submitted for his office to apparently virtually rubber-stamp.  He has apparently been very close to the wily elder Apirana Mahuika, who claimed, when a generous full and final settlement was signed, that it would not be the end of it – that his present generation had no right to hold the next generation to a proceeding agreement. When, as a then Dominion columnist,  I pointed out at the time that in this case he and his fellow claimants, according to this logic, had no right to expect today’s generation to endorse the Treaty of Waitangi, he went off the air…

How sad it is that today’s destructive tribalism is not only opposing the common good: it is sowing dissent throughout this country. Our governments have been very much culpable – both National and Labour have let the country down. And Labour is now marching further ahead downs the same well-trodden path.

That this neo-tribalism is destroying much of what has been best about New Zealand  – where racial discrimination  held so little place that intermarriage was taken for granted  – to the extent that there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in our relatively short cohabitation – is no longer in doubt. But we never hear a word from you, Susan Devoy, Race Relations Conciliator, about the real reasons for what is going wrong. Your apparent focus on attempting to punish those you consider hold “racist” views is yet another nail in the coffin of the once far healthier democracy we were.

A number of factors are contributing to the growth of separatism and resentment. But basically, rapacious, so-called neo-tribes, with their unhealthy but highly lucrative concentration on grievances dating back two centuries, are responsible – together with the lawyers so obligingly assisting them, helping themselves to a large chunk of the never-ending settlements which were supposed to have reached final closure years ago. Moreover, greed and avarice being what they are, the possibility of squeezing even more millions from New Zealand taxpayers to add to the $50 billion which the Maori economy is now worth, is being milked on what has become a never-ending basis. That ridiculous claims to areas which Maori never owned, including our waterways, plants, and the radio spectrum are not immediately laughed out of court are an indictment on our venal political parties  – and a now perceivedly activist judicial system.

 The facts of the matter – that there given there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in this country, and  that most with some Maori ancestry do not profit one whit from what the chief executives of these neo-tribes – in fact basically corporate bodies – are contriving for themselves is completely ignored by our constantly vote-buying political parties.  What is also ignored is that none of these settlements benefit any in the past who were genuinely wronged – and that the blame for any such injustices (which certainly by no means affected only Maori) cannot possibly be laid at the feet of any New Zealanders today.

So what has been happening? The answer lies in Malcolm X’s advice to radical activists that  “The squeaky wheel gets the most grease…”  advice the controversial  Titewhai Harawira gave to her followers.  Mrs  Harawira, like so many activist part- Maori,  who have apparently been intent on passing on a sense of grievance to the next generation – without ever acknowledging the very tangible benefits that colonisation brought to Maori –   has apparently never come to terms with the simple fact that, as Bruce Moon reminds us, the Treaty of Waitangi – Te Tiriti o Waitangi  was basically a simple document which said in essence  that the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and forever to the Queen,  and that all Maoris (including the many slaves) received the rights of the people of England. The extraordinary and quite wrong statement by the President of the Royal Society, Richard Bedford, to the effect that researchers have special responsibilities under the treaty is quite wrong, as is his reference, to Aotearoa New Zealand – a name which does not occur in any reference to New Zealand in Te Tiriti – but which is now being heavily promoted by radical activists as a substitute for this country’s correct name.

A clue to what underpins this ongoing push for separatism and indeed for special privileges – is found in a recent interview given by the radicalised Mrs Titewhai Harawira, mother of the stroppy former MP Hone Harawira.  “They talk about how Māori have special privileges. But we don’t have any special privileges. We are tangata whenua and we have a treaty that says we have a right to these taonga. And the Pākehā have a right to look after their own people. Not to rule over us.”

She’s wrong, of course. Sovereignty was ceded to the Crown. And it’s interesting how the original meaning of the words such as taonga has been exaggerated beyond recognition. Taonga applied only to material possessions – including land, to which stable possession and legal title was never held by Maori – until the coming of British Law establishing this. Similarly, the much invoked claim to be tangata whenua is quite wrong. Mrs Harawira’s ancestors made known to our early historians that the term referred to the people they knew had been here before them – a term translated variously as the first people – or the people of the land.

An interesting observation by Andy Oakley, author of the well researched ….”Once We Were One – The Fraud of Modern Separatism” (Tross Publishing) is that “I am finding more and more in my debates with Maori separatists that they accept there is noting in Te Tiriti that gives them any special rights, and the elevation of one race over all others may not be fair. However, what they now tend to say is:  it does not matter how I (me) or Pakeha feel about the situation: the courts have made their decisions and central and local governments are enacting these decisions by giving Maori separate and  superior rights… Get used to it.”

The country is not going to get used to it. The inevitable backlash is already under way.  So is the growing questioning about the qualifications – or lack of them – that our Race Relations Conciliator brings to bear on her highly controversial role. People are asking why she was ever appointed.

Postscript. The talk scheduled to be given at the Nelson library by historian Bruce Moon, at the invitation of the Nelson Institute,  has been called off. Apparently, representatives of the Nelson City Council, library officials, and two members of the Nelson Institute met, as all three groups have been contacted by persons saying he should not be allowed to talk on this topic.

Allowed? The you-can’t-say-that bullying and intimidation now being exercised on campuses overseas, by those too apparently mentally and emotionally fragile to be able to tolerate genuine debate, is well under way in this country. More than one other historian is reporting similar incidents.

Moon’s talk, “Twisting the treaty and other fake history” was specifically designed to be non-political – the findings of a scientist turned historian – rather than, one would expect (from his extremely well-informed writing in these areas) that of those government-endorsed, PC historians who have lent too willing and too uncritical an ear to the self-serving propaganda too often advanced by some of today’s manipulative tribal corporations.

This disgraceful and successful attempt to shut down well-informed commentators has been well under way overseas…It has now come here. Copy-cat objections to the scheduled talk were represented under the guise of concern about it disturbing the peace and becoming a Health and Safety issue. Reportedly, the individuals who thought up this underhand way of preventing actual facts being presented concerning the distortion of the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi are well known to the Council and library staff.

They need to be publicly identified, rather than sheltering under the convenient umbrella of anonymity. Nelson Institute, the Council and library  have all shamefully buckled under. If a legitimate case could indeed be made for it being a Health and Safety issue then the implying of possible violence means that this whole matter should now be reported to the police. But who’s holding their breath?

The only effective opposition to this virtual bullying by those anxious to hijack our democratic institutions can be mounted by individuals.

We have forgotten the power on one….Each one of your and my individual objections to this new totalitarianism is the strongest blow against this push for tribal preferment, and power. It is intent on contriving a virtual apartheid , and the supremacy of unrepresentative, minority power seekers working to undermine this country. Our real concern must be those who, as Edmund Burke pointed out, do absolutely nothing to help save the day…

Do you?  If so, we all owe a debt to you. Thank you!

If not? Join us – and tell others – till the knowledge of what is actually happening reaches right around the country.  

*

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

 

For Best Practice Democracy – read The Spectator – below.

Losing our democracy….

For why we ourselves, individual New Zealanders, need to claim back our country from our now thoroughly unrepresentative politicians, read further  – below the link to my recent Spectator Australia published article, Best Practice Democracy.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/best-practice-democracy/

For example, what has happened to us in recent decades when a new South African arrival expresses shock at finding what is basically another form of apartheid now being deliberately promoted in this country? Reportedly, he not surprisingly hoped he had left all this behind… and couldn’t believe it is happening here.

What’s more, this reverse apartheid is being deliberately backed by our political parties, jostling for self advantage… And it is going to get worse – with the extremist push for separate, thoroughly undemocratic constitutional “rights” for any of part -Maori descent. But why?

Labour, under its new, activist leader,  Jacinda Ardern, shows every sign or leading us even further down this racist path, although to date, National has been even worse than Labour in this respect. During its recent period of dominance, the markedly racist Vision Matauranga was supported. A marked form of prioritising Maori-related outcomes, government-backed, it requires not only our universities, but our private institutions to provide, in research grant applications, preferential outcomes for those of part-Maori descent over all other individuals. More on this in future, as this insidious requirement has now crept into other institutions bearing no relevance whatever to any particular ethnic group.

For the moment: one outstanding example is that scientists who apply for all government grants for research purposes from the Ministry of Research and Innovation – (funded by all taxpayers) – now have to state how it will first supposedly serve Maori interests – and if not – they have to explain why. Note the comment below from one scientist – and scores of others will be thinking the same.

“Government is now requiring *all* applications for research funding from Ministry of Business & Innovation (MBIE) to consider Vision Mātauranga nonsense.  Previously, one was able to tick a box to say one’s research didn’t have such relevance – now, chillingly, one must ‘provide evidence if you think Vision Mātauranga isn’t relevant’  (the twisted logic of this requirement is so outrageous that it almost sounds as if it could be challenged, legally).

“May be a sufficiently palatable way round this kind of thing, but certainly puts me off wanting to be involved in any kind of proposal at all.  And to get a job away from research!”

Hands up those who think that Susan Devoy, if this were brought to her attention, would strenuously object on behalf of all New Zealanders at such specific racist demands?

Hmm.

Incidentally,  with a Maori economy of now $50 billion, the very wealthy iwi – thanks to the never-ending raiding of taxpayers’ pockets -could  well afford to fund their own research – prioritising specific Maori-interest outcomes…

*

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