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

The bully boys and girls have gone too far

https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/07/the-bully-boys-and-girls-have-gone-too-far/

We all know that among human beings, in every ethnic grouping, individuals vary enormously. And I’ll always recall with gratitude the kindness of a Wellington Muslim café owner, Abdel, who, learning that we had just come from farewelling my mother, brought my sister and me a cup of coffee with an almond biscuit – and would take no payment.

Any well-justified concern at the aggressive worldwide march of Islam needs to take into account that most people share basic aims, wanting peace for their families and the best for their children. We have this in common with New Zealanders of all backgrounds – including family-minded Muslims who now regard themselves as New Zealanders and have happily become part of our communities.

However, the threat to this country from radicalised Islam targeting, propagandising, recruiting, even virtually blackmailing its own people is very real. So New Zealanders have a right to know what steps the government is taking to safeguard this country – and to limit the intake from those from Islamic background.

We should now be well aware, given what is happening right throughout Europe, and even in our closest neighbour, Australia, that when the numbers are sufficiently large, assimilation is replaced by virtual enclaves, or ghettoised settlements. Women and young girls continue to be sexually mutilated and basically enslaved by their male relatives, forced or brainwashed to wearing anachronistic, burdensome clothing,  while Islam’s deep antagonism to Christianity and the West should make us very wary of our government’s apparent naivety – if not incompetence  – in the face of its strident minority demands.

We all now well know the pattern happening world-wide. Radicalised activists from other cultures, sheltering within ethnic groups, begin to challenge majority rule – and to demand the damaging separatism which has occurred under the manipulative, ideological demands for multiculturalism.

So-called diversity, the superior merits of which we are constantly assailed with, is simply a weasel word wielded like a bludgeon to propagandise and intimidate New Zealanders beginning to ask well-overdue questions about what is happening to this country.

It is time for our politicians put their hands up to answer them. Our political parties’ responsibility is given to them by New Zealanders – to represent us, in accordance with our wishes – not to constantly over-ride them. But it is the latter which has now become entrenched.

Join our 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement – www.100days.co.nz

 © Amy Brooke

“Disharmonious speech” ! Wake up NZ – This is shocking…

 

 “Disharmonious speech” ! Wake up NZ – This is shocking  

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings/audio/is-freedom-of-speech-under-threat/#ath

Political commentator Lindsay Perigo has told Chris Lynch he is concerned freedom of speech is under threat in New Zealand from the Human Rights Commission wanting to prevent “disharmonious speech” directed towards ethnic minority groups in New Zealand.

Yes, we are all busy, but it’s well worth taking the time to listen to this interview. It was this same highly experienced media commentator who originally raised the alarm over the “brain dead” directions of our state-sponsored television and broadcasting media.

This is now equalled by the descent of  Fairfax New Zealand  (a subsidiary of Australia’s Fairfax Media newspapers)  and New Zealand Media & Entertainment (owned by Sydney-based APN News & Media and the Australian Radio Network) into the obligingly dumbed-down, PC, daily fare dished up to this country. There never was a better time to abandon subscriptions and to support proudly independent local newspapers.

Critical analysis of what we’re being fed through the media is only too rare, which is why the Perigo interview is so very important. For there is no question that we New Zealanders are in deep trouble with now state-sponsored cultural bullying receiving useful platforms in the only-too compliant mass media.

It is also receiving support even in areas which have absolutely no business in becoming politically active – and radicalised.  The police hierarchy, for example, is now causing concern by its inappropriate intrusion into areas relating to policy-making – a move which will rightly concern many of its own rank and file.

Former Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy, already viewed by many as inappropriately partisan in her role, increased concern with her apparent wish to involve the police in policy decisions  – or pressuring the government to do. And now, a New Zealand Herald correspondent has pointed out that the Acting Race Relations Conciliator, Paula Tesoriero, a former New Zealand Paralympics racing cyclist, has made the mistake of attempting to equate freedom of speech with physical safety…in order to give legitimacy to restricting this freedom. This is very poor thinking from her indeed.

 This Herald correspondent commented on Tesoriero’s failure to make the distinction between words and actions – a now fashionable justification for those seeking to muzzle freedom of expression. He’s right in stating that “Legislation already protects the right to physical safety- and words are not actions.” Moreover, as he points out “The commission seeks new legislation to sanction ‘hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religious and beliefs of minority communities.’ Who will define these terms, he asks, and why would they apply only to speech directed at minority communities?’

Why indeed? But I think we all know the answer to this, given the now constant attack on mainstream New Zealanders, who are not being consulted by our government on what they feel as the best directions for our country.

Tesoriero has now denied that this is the case – but the evidence is against her.  The Summary of Recommendations by our far from impartial Race Relations Commission to the United Nations is worth checking out– see 2(a) and (b)  – https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/8215/0171/9491/Appendix_to_NZHRC_CERD_Submission_2017_-_Summary_of_Recommendations.pdf

Not only does it inexcusably continue to advance the quite wrong claim of a ”partnership” between Maori and the Crown, it specifically urges the government  to “Review the adequacy of current legislation in addressing and sanctioning hate speech and incitement to racial disharmony, including hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities.”

In fact, reading this document right through leaves little doubt in the reader’s mind that it is basically a highly activist piece of work, also pressuring the government to implement the recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal – a body which has already been not only utterly partisan, but even arguably corrupt in its modus operandi. (See page 160 in my book “The 100 Days  – Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians – “The case for abolishing the highly damaging Waitangi  Tribunal and questioning its highly dubious, activist record.”

We’ve got to the stage in this country where the European-descended majority is now basically under constant attack, with special rights and privileges directed not only at today’s part-Maori but at other ethnic minorities which can be used as a tool for this purpose. And of course, when one particular sector of the community gains special rights, special privileges, special concessions…it is always at the cost to all others.

The weasel word of diversity has become especially useful when wielded to silence criticism from New Zealanders rightly concerned that the democratic aim of equal rights for all, regardless of colour, race, gender and creed to bring people together as one – is now being deliberately undermined.

Even given this aim of equality under the law for all New Zealanders, we need to also remember the American political scientist Sam Huntingdon’s reminder about cultures in conflict. Best known for his 1993 theory, “the Clash of civilisations”-  of  a new post-Cold  War new world order – he argued that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures, and that Islam extremism would become the biggest threat to world peace. Given the problems that the rise of militant Islam is now causing throughout Europe, in Britain and even close to us, in Australia, it can be argued that it would be irresponsible of our government to allow unrestricted Muslim immigration to our own country. Moreover, it would be inexcusable if even opening this relevant issue up for debate will bring accusations of “disharmonious speech” directed against concerned New Zealanders.

The summary of the Race Relation Commission’s recommendations to the United Nations should be torn up. It is basically a divisive and damaging document – and gives credence to those who argue that the commission itself should be abolished.

Susan Devoy had come to be viewed by many as naïve in her seeming lack of awareness that the United Nations is now a highly suspect organisation essentially antagonistic to the West, with a basically One World, repressive agenda aimed at bringing down democracies. Devoy did not seem to realise that her loyalty should be to New Zealanders at large – not to this leftist organisation whose destructive diktats should be opposed – not endorsed.  The question that should be asked is – who authorised her policy stands there on our behalf?

The situation is getting worse, not better, with this new move to threaten or criminalise New Zealanders by proposed new legislation ridiculously described as “disharmonious speech”. Common sense alone, which today seems extraordinarily lacking among government appointees, points to the fact that a horse and cart, metaphorically speaking, can be driven through this definition. And all the puffery now forthcoming – to hastily assure us that such legislation would only be invoked in extreme cases – should be treated with the derision it deserves.  Bad laws are bad laws – and what is proposed is very bad law indeed. 

It is in essence nothing other than a giant step towards the overwhelmingly repressive legislation with which those unfortunate enough  to live in the former USSR, in Nazi Germany, in North Korea today – or in any other  oppressive dictatorships  – were, and are, only too familiar. 

The hour is now very late for New Zealanders to wake up – or we are going to lose this country.  We all know that the tentacles of the State are reaching more and more over us all, not only with all the increasing compliance edicts and petty regulations,  but with the utterly inappropriate ethnic superiority, anti-Christian, anti-European onslaught that has targeted all our institutions. The universities, the teacher training facilities, the nursing and medical curricula –  and, among the most pernicious, the Ministry of Education, imposing its costly and radicalised agenda on our schools  in a blatant power grab for the minds of  our children – are all now contributing. 

 The ominous and loaded phrase “hate speech” was bad enough. But now, under a basically socialist government, and an agenda-driven Prime Minister who likes to use the word “Comrades” – while well aware of its Communist cloaking – we are heading and more and more towards the reality of a police state. 

A recent excellent article in the Spectator Australia by political science student Tom Grein should be compulsory reading for all our naive and incompetent politicians. It is the latter, whose knuckling under to the bullying of the Marxist cultural movement white-anting our society (in the name of ethnic diversity), who are costing us so dearly. It is our politicians  who constantly inflict on the country, without New Zealanders’ consent, the flawed, ill-thought legislation with which we have become only too familiar. 

Noting that we have lost our way, Grein states,” I’m talking of course about the unfettered ability of the individual to express their (sic) opinion without fear of violence or intimidation, otherwise known as free speech…

“I propose this is an open question to those that demand speech codes. 

  “Quo warranto? The oldest question in the book asks, By what right do you have to decide what I can and cannot hear?

“A de facto Islamic blasphemy law is already in place – everyone knows full well what the consequences of caricaturing ‘the prophet’ are. The Rushdie affair and the Danish cartoons Charlie Hebdo… You had your own protests in this fine city of Sydney a few years back which saw young Muslims carrying signs saying ‘Behead all those who insult the Prophet’. If you had told me before I read up on these problems that people were being killed in Western nations for caricaturing a prophet, I would have asked ‘When did the Inquisition return?  These sickly developments are a threat not only to free speech, but to everything we can sensibly call civilisation, and   must be meet head-on… 

“ It pained me to read about the attempted prohibition of the Catholic Union at Balliol College, Oxford…This specific targeting of Christians has become an all too common theme on university campuses as we saw a few months back with the harassment of students on this campus,  the University of Sydney,  over their opposition to same-sex marriage…Such incidents  represent the pointy end of a ‘progressive’ culture that has swept through the institutions of Australian society over the past decade or so,  which seeks to make redundant the history of this nation and reshape it along a revisionist ideology of guilt, shame, and self-flagellation”.   

New Zealanders will recognise exactly the same sort of reinvention of our history, the deliberate encouragement of a culture of special “entitlement” for some.  The agenda underpinning this here is just as dangerous and as corrupt.  

Grein concludes, with an unusual source as a recommendation. “I offer this challenge as a pragmatic way forward {that]  – we return to first principles in understanding the necessity of free speech… I suggest the letters of Rosa Luxemburg who most eloquently wrote, ‘Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.’  

“From this position we must inculcate a culture that understands the significance of free speech and its place as the bedrock which all other freedoms lie upon…” 

He concludes with Oscar Wilde’s reminder that ‘He who does not think for himself does not think at all.’ 

To have a police force in the position of laying charges against individuals brave enough to challenge the damaging, politically correct orthodoxies of the day would be unacceptable –  incredible and  utterly dismaying to those New Zealanders who fought for our democratic freedoms. 

 If we do not correspondingly fight, we will not just have let them down – we will have lost our country. 

*

© 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.

 

 

 

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution?

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution? Apparently so – with her suggestion of involving the police to charge those she fancies have committed “hate speech”.

While in every society  there are undoubtedly individuals whose form of expression is extreme, unfair, or thoroughly objectionable, there is very good reason why we have not in the past moved towards a more totalitarian society –  by removing the right to free speech.

What our Race Relations Conciliator does not seem able to take on board is the fact that  New Zealand can no longer claim to be a free society if she achieves her apparent wish – to have individuals charged with the crime of using speech she and others may find offensive.

This is a horrifically dangerous move for any government to embark upon – a new form of censorship which would have been completely unthinkable to our parents and grandparents. Only in times of war,  when loose tongues could cost lives, has any Western society risked the damage done to one of the most important of human freedoms – people’s very basic rights to speak the truth as they see it.

But there is no doubt now that individuals are under threat today, even vilified, or virulently attacked for speaking the truth as they see this – for pointing out the growing dangers threatening our society.  The form of Muslim extremism, for example, sweeping across Europe, tolerates no opposition, the least form of which is name-calling and disparaging its opponents – those with the courage still to try to warn about what is actually happening to this now troubled continent.

 It has always been recognised that whether individual opinions are considered right or wrong – an open society is the only one compatible with Western freedoms – and the underpinning of democracy. Open debate and free comment are the best remedies to counter extremism. And we should be questioning why, if Devoy has any real knowledge of what happened to those societies in the 20th century (and today) in which the climate of intimidation allowed dictatorships to flourish, she has not taken the lessons on board.

It’s happening again. From one of the best informed website journals, The Gatestone Institute, comes this reminder of what happens when the State begins to censor speech. It contains a reminder by Spiked Online editor, Brendan O’Neill, that “politically correct speech does not need protecting. The United States first Amendment exists precisely to protect the minority from the majority – and to protect unpopular opinions from those who would silence them.”  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12008/france-le-pen-free-speech#.WrNlggLKBas.gmail

There seems little doubt that Susan Devoy, with her aim of having suppressed speech or opinions which she finds unpalatable, thinks these should be silenced.

 This is not only an aim incompatible with democratic freedoms – (regardless of the creeping activism we have seen for some time, in relation to even our court decisions). It flies in the face of that most important reminder from The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 19.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

We have already in this country seen the rise of bullying and name-calling whereby radical activism uses the tactics of badmouthing thoughtful critics by targeting them as racist, or homophobic, for example. As it works by silencing all too many worried about the repercussions ensuing from standing up for their beliefs, we have started on the first step of a very slippery slope.

Ms Devoy arguably needs to think much more deeply of the consequences of her wish to involve the police to target individuals whose utterances she disapproves of. This will undoubtedly take us even further down the road of a virtual Police State that some maintain, with reason, we are already embarked upon.

©  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.