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/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UN Compact on Global Migration – a disgraceful affair

The UN Compact on Global Migration – a disgraceful affair

What many regard with good reason as the sneaky signing of this potentially damaging agreement is going to be the turning point for so many.

Right across the country, well-informed New Zealanders are shocked at what is seen as a thoroughly underhand  effort by our Left-wing Coalition government to deliberately postpone  endorsing this UN agenda-driven, control move against the West  – (no matter what Winston thinks about it)  – until just as Parliament closes down for the year.

Why should we be surprised? It’s certainly not the first time that determined politicians,  very well aware that  the country, nationwide, is strongly opposed to  some agenda-driven legislation, have deliberately pushed it through right on the verge of Christmas when Parliament is closing down. And, of course – hoping that we will all be too busy at this very special time of the year to be able to mount a sufficient protest.

Well, the days of civic protest, of marches on Parliament  – not by special interest groups but by New Zealanders now increasingly concerned about what is happening to this country –  are coming closer. What sort of democracy do we now have when this delayed decision has been deliberately contrived  – in order to prevent the Opposition from providing much-need debate – and from highlighting the flaws in the government’s arguments?

But it is certainly helping New Zealanders further towards coming of age politically.

The level of anger that the government has taken this route is palpable – much of it directed at Winston Peters – whose intelligence has never been doubted – but who is now quoting the Crown Law Office as virtually saying everything is just fine… that all the other Western countries, acting on obviously far better informed, expert advice – and saying no to signing this weasel document  – are just wrong.  In Winston’s view…

Regardless of what lawyers from the Crown Law Office have said – apparently more or less to the point that everything is hunky-dory – we just don’t believe them – with very good reason. Moreover, although at the moment that’s another issue, the Crown Law Office has arguably already proved itself less than competent in the past.

This country is now divided into two camps – that of the political class – versus the people. And we all now know the former take no real notice of New Zealanders,  except at election time. Jacinda Ardern’s hard-Left, Labour-Green  socialist grouping now has the bit well and truly between its teeth – and we’re all going to be paying… And paying. As one commentator has noted, socialism is basically fascism – and inflicting this legislation on a country strongly opposed to it is basically a fascist move.

Winston –  I hear on all sides – is going to be toast, at the next election.  He is widely regarded as having let down this country.  One perception is that his obvious, extreme  antagonism towards the National Party, strongly opposed to this insidious UN Compact, has led the position he has taken – which, to many now shocked New Zealanders, is a betrayal of their trust in him.

Which way to go now?

It has become more and more obvious to so many that politicians simply can’t be trusted  – and that the only way forward  is not through launching and backing yet another political  party, but through achieving a tipping point of New Zealanders to support our highly winnable movement  to win back this country.

See http://www.100Days.co.nz- and join us to help in this crucial fight! 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand.

The Compact for Migration? Yet another control push by the UN…

(Apologies if you’ve already received this. Re-sending, as most didn’t).

 

The Compact for Migration? We all know it’s basically yet another control push by the UN… 

Given all the countries that have pulled out to date, when is Jacinda Ardern going to stop dithering and  take on board the fact that so many other democracies, including now our nearest neighbour Australia, have pulled out FOR GOOD REASON.  Others are facing unrest by populations that have had enough of their governments making bad decisions… 

Why can’t Jacinda look at the actual evidence? It’s incredible and unforgivable that the Labour coalition is still even considering signing this anti-the West, typical UN bureaucracy demand.

Winston is not distinguishing himself   – and he will be toast by the next election if he doesn’t disassociate New Zealand First from it.  He is already changing his tune – but instead of trying to constantly score points about National he should stop having five bob each way – because he obviously realises the implications for New Zealand… if this is one more UN Diktat inflicted on us. So it’s time for him to plainly say so.

Naturally Helen Clark backs it – one of the best reasons for our rejecting it, considering Clarke’s vision was, and probably still is for a One World government to which individual countries are supposed to yield sovereignty. Remember how she destroyed the combat wing of our Air Force – to Australia’s incredulity? Can you imagine the Australians ever allowing a leader with such an obvious agenda   to destroy a vital part of their defence force?

Why did New Zealanders wake up so late? At least, the evidence is that they are increasingly doing just this, that attitudes are changing and that the electorate is increasingly fed up with being basically ruled by leaders whose competence is more than questionable. Either that or their interests are not the same as those of the country at large. And wouldn’t that be considered subversion?

We are buying new planes with surveillance and combat capabilities. Miss Clark won’t like that? And now she is back in the country, from the Beehive come reports that she is constantly stirring the pot.

Time to let go, Helen… or just go…

This UN push is a yet another socialist/ Communist vision, and Miss Ardern looks to be a big fan of Miss Clark. She also likes to call people Comrade.

Comrade?!

We don’t need fellow-travellers running this country. The decision should be made by New Zealanders – for New Zealanders – not by left-wing political parties for a now thoroughly discredited UN – with a record of choosing the most oppressive countries in the world to head the Human Rights Organisations. That  really says everything.

As for heading off to Morocco to oversee the signing of something whose meaning is perfectly clear,  reading the text    – we’re  all tired of expensive jaunts for which we all pay – while the political class  burn up carbon credits  jetting here and there,  inventing more and more fuel and other  taxes for the rest of us.

Haven’t we all had enough?

© Amy Brooke – http://www.100days.co.nz

Is Facebook interfering again?

Can the reaction to the Gossnell film can be regarded as a victory against the very truth of what happens in abortion?  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebook-blocks-gosnell-ads-labels-film-about-serial-killer-abortionist-pol

Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer is currently playing in theatres nationwide, but one of the film’s producers says that Facebook is doing its part to keep Americans from knowing about it. Why?

Was the great Times columnist, Bernard Levin right or wrong when he said,  “the atrophy of moral judgment is the characteristic disease of our times – the inability to see evil and a willingness to condone it”? 

Is there in fact a great badness underpinning the attack on the truth of what happens in abortion? Is our own Prime Minister dodging this, in her wish to “liberalise” the law?

Why do so many American women – and women elsewhere  – they  who know the reality of a dependent little life growing inside them –  so very desperately repudiate  what is actually true? Why do they fight against taking on board the fact that much more is involved than the highly specious mantra of “a woman’s right to her own body”?

It’s not her own body she’s having killed, is it…

So what about the fudging of the fact that the deliberate killing of a boy or girl child instead is what actually happens?

What if it is no accident that we have progressed – or rather – regressed – to the point where people have become embarrassed about actually using their judgment about what is good or  evil – even about the existence of actual forces of good and evil – because it is now unfashionable to do so? 

Has “evil” simply become an embarrassing word?

But what if there is both good and evil in the world and we are constantly faced with choices between these?  And what if these choices carry consequences?

What is the effect on us – and on our society – if we just don’t want to know – if we pretend it doesn’t matter whether or not we actually try to get to the truth of issues – rather than simply justify to ourselves and others the choices that are “more convenient”, more palatable?

But what if to be human carries an obligation that we must evaluate what we’re doing – what we support and what we don’t support?

What if we are expected to think with our heads as well as our hearts – to make moral choices – to even think about the meaning of the word moral?

What if it is time to stop ignoring or glossing over the damage this dreadful practice has done to so many women, victims of a massive con – many in pain for the rest of their lives… let alone the dead babies resulting?

Is part of the problem with Western civilisation today that basically, individuals have been long propagandised against the necessity for moral and spiritual and spiritual choices in our lives?

What if it is actually true that …”Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians. 

Is it time we faced up to being far less conflicted about talking about  the very real possibility of moral and spiritual evil  – and of the act of abortion being very much part of this? 

And shouldn’t we wonder why those who legitimately raise these issues are subjected to such vilification and abuse?

 © Amy Brooke

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

The real racism in our institutions. And not all women are irrational!

 

The real racism in our institutions. And not all women are irrational!

There’s little doubt that away from our long infiltrated and now Marxist-dominated universities, by far the majority of New Zealanders will agree with Professor Greg Newbold of the University of Canterbury when he challenges what is happening.

Did you know that Sandra Grey, president of the Tertiary Education Union (TEU), has come out IN SUPPORT of Massey’s VC, and said that Don Brash’s views have no place in a university?

Unbelievable!

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As a member of the TEU for the past 30 years I wish to condemn in the strongest terms the letter that the TEU president has recently sent to members at Massey University. Inter alia, the message says that the (unspecified) views of Dr Don Brash ‘should not be encouraged, respected, nor accepted’ and infers that the rules of free speech should not apply in the case of Dr Brash. It also says that Dr Brash’s (unspecified) views have no place in this country and it supports the Massey VC’s decision to stop Dr Brash from speaking on campus.

To suggest that views that may contradict the opinions of some people should be banned from expression on a university campus, and that a person who holds such views should be blocked from speaking on a campus, is a direct affront to the principle of freedom of thought and speech. Any such a suggestion erodes the most sacred principle upon which a university is founded. It also undermines the basis of a free and democratic society and is reminiscent of the book-burning philosophies of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.   The TEU should stridently reject the censorship of controversial ideas and oppose the suppression of debate on matters that are of critical importance to this nation.

Greg Newbold, Professor in Sociology, University of Canterbury

https://us4.campaign-archive.com/?u=fb04aaec9ab34fde94735fa91&id=c15f1f0c2e

Reading through the extraordinary nonsense offered by Sandra Grey (link above)  in  her contention that she is all for free speech…but wants some free-speech banned  (!)  one can only marvel at the apparently delusional nature of so much of what these left-wing women are now maintaining.

But where are the good women publicly opposing them? Or what about the point some are now making, strong, centrist-right women writers, many far from feminist – who feel they are being elbowed out by their male colleagues? A touch of condescension here and there? Male solidarity? Even male ego?

Historically this has certainly been valid, regarding women as outside the brotherhood…and it seems to be still the case, from mounting anecdotal evidence. A pity if these strongest voices of all in the best position to challenge the sisterhood are not getting the support they well deserve.

Thanks to all those who have persevered, often largely because of sheer courage, of integrity, of their concern to protect their families – the family unit itself, as the most important institution of all –  in  the face of the sheer venom of what have been termed the feminazi.

The result? The tide is undoubtedly turning against the essentially totalitarian thinking and practices now being inflicted upon the public, not only by our government and our local governments,  but by our publicly funded institutions, very much including the universities.

And it is those New Zealanders who have stood up to be counted who have achieved this.  The country owes you – as will our children

What about those who have just complained – and done nothing?  Is it a lack of moral courage – or just laziness? Even though  you count.

If you have done nothing at all to help to date, there is still time…

Email, call your local MP’s office – call the universities  –write to your local paper – ring talkback. Above all, register your displeasure with the increasingly racist provisions now being foisted off on New Zealanders by parliament.

Parliament’s number is 04 817 9999.

Ring Jacinda Ardern’s office for your message to be delivered to the Prime Minister.

Ring Winston Peters’ office – and tell him why so many New Zealanders feel he let them down.

And especially – join us to help reach a tipping point of New Zealanders right around the country. www.100days.co.nz

© 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.