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.

 

 

 

Why is Jacinda Ardern promoting further racial separatism?

Why is Jacinda Ardern promoting further racial separatism? 

Can Ardern really be ignorant of the fact that there is absolutely no doubt that New Zealanders as a whole – whatever their ethnic background – are now fed up with the increasing polarisation of society along the lines of a deliberately promoted Maori superiority? 

Is she ignorant, naïve –  or does she have a more concerning aim in mind? 

According to the usual part-Maori activists, Maori names must now appear first. In city streets, throughout national and local government agencies, signs are being rewritten at considerable expense to the whole country so that Maori – in many cases, of course, predominantly reinvented Maori – is to take precedence. Any English must appear in much smaller lettering underneath. 

 This is not only insulting to the majority of New Zealanders: it appears to be  an extraordinarily insensitive promotion of resentment, of a kickback against the massive, never-ending payouts of now hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed “compensation” by a generation today which had absolutely nothing to do with any wrongs committed nearly 200 hundred years ago. Moreover, a one-sided emphasis on these has been allowed to hold sway for too long. 

Add on the nonsensical assertion that what is now an overwhelmingly fake language should be compulsorily inflicted upon the country…with attempts to pass it off as “the language of the land”, and the inevitable backlash is gathering momentum. 

Someone needs to tell the present Race Relations Conciliator this claim of hers is sheer gobbledygook. The land has no language.  The land cannot speak. Faced with an inexorable logic, even if one were deluded enough to literally put one ear to the ground, one would have to admit a failure in any attempt to listen to the land speaking… 

Moreover, if the land today had a language it would be English – the international language overwhelmingly necessary for communication both within and outside this country…the language which new immigrants must learn to assimilate…the language which by far the majority of those of Maori descent also prefer to speak. And any attempt by the politically correct to try to gain more mileage for a language stretched well past its original authenticity will be resisted by New Zealanders who have far more important things to do – and who resent the ongoing virtual squandering of scores of millions of dollars each year on a now inauthentic, largely made-up language which has no relevance to them.  But it provides lucrative jobs for the boys and girls pushing it… 

In fact, it can be argued that it is not only farcical to claim that a genuine Maori language has the words for, say Inland Revenue Department, Ministry of  Social Welfare, economy return flight tickets to Afghanistan… Accident and Emergency Department… but that it is a basic con to claim that this largely reinvented language is authentic.  

So why is this happening? 

We are also well overdue to ask – who is Maori?  

It’s past time for a scientifically based definition of Maori. We should now be insisting upon this from this government, because the lack of any definition allows today’s opportunists, those with their eye to the main chance, to claim to be Maori for any economic or preferential advantage going. 

There are no longer any genuinely full-blooded Maoris in this country. And the most prominent iwi opportunists are those who are predominantly certainly not Maori – but to whom the constant rejection of the largest proportion of their genetic inheritance pays great dividends – given today’s corruption of our vote-seeking political parties.

Remember Donna Awatare? A convicted fraudster, together with her husband, she was found guilty in 2005 and sentenced to 2 years nine months in jail. They were convicted of stealing $80,000 from a trust fund she had formed to improve literacy among underperforming Maori children.  Since being released from jail, she has held several roles including deputy chair administration for the New Zealand Māori Council.

In 2014 she represented the council in presenting the Māori claim for water to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.  She has now been appointed Maori Climate Commissioner.

How many will have been incredulous at this news? It is not surprising, but it is ominous, that our major newspaper syndicates, obligingly changing their mastheads  to switch to Maori-derived names, have now severely cut back, or completely dispensed with, the ability to comment on the major socio-political articles of the day. 

Why do you think this might be? Could it possibly be related to the fact that most commentators have voiced their concern, even their anger, at the views of the majority of New Zealanders now being completely discarded.  

One correspondent‘s view, that the Treaty of Waitangi has become a stranglehold on the rest of the country, is now reflected the length and breadth of the country.  Another expat’s comments represent the thinking of many. Having left New Zealand because of the increasingly toxic atmosphere caused by our political parties sell-out of democracy along racist lines, he writes, “It seems the will of the people in a democratic vote is not respected if the minority don’t like it. This I find very worrying,  as voting is the basis of democracy.” Individuals who feel powerless in the face of this increasingly racist reorientation of New Zealand do have a remedy. And it’s a very easy one.  Each of us can indeed stand up to be counted. You don’t have to despise yourself for doing nothing  (an essentially cowardly choice which diminishes us as human beings, as Jordan Peterson points out ) –  or for feeling powerless in the face of this virtual steam-rolling over the majority of New Zealanders. 

When did you last put a quick call through to Parliament to the appropriate office – that of your local MP? – or the office of the leader of a political party. They claim they really want to hear from you  – then why don’t you make sure they do?  

A correspondent has contacted me to say she has done just that. She rang Jacinda Arden’s office to politely state that she completely disagrees – as do majority of New Zealanders – with the racist lines Jacinda Ardern is promoting… She asked her views to be taken into account – to be taken back to the Prime Minister. 

Everything in the end depends upon individuals. Why don’t you do the same? And no – it’s not like knocking on the headmaster’s door! We employ and pay our political servants. We will be genuinely beginning to claim back this country when we act upon this actual fact.  

Parliament’s number is 04 817 9999. Ring and ask to be put through to the appropriate office. Every call counts – as does doing nothing… We do have a choice.

 

©  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.