Has Jacinda Ardern gone too far?  Some now think so.

Has Jacinda Ardern gone too far?  Some now think so. Troubling issues are arising.

An issue not being raised in the mainstream media is that questions are very much  in evidence among New Zealanders at large about whether Jacinda Ardern’s naivety has affected her judgment – not only in donning a hijab, regarded by so many Muslim women  forced to wear this head covering as a symbol of patriarchal oppression. The highly respected Spectator https://spectator.us/jacinda-ardern-hijab-muslims/ highlights what The Gatestone Institute has also drawn our attention – to  “ A female lawyer who courageously defended Iranian women who removed their hijabs to protest the Iranian regime’s misogynistic treatment, was sentenced recently to 33 years in prison and a flogging of 150 lashes.  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13912/uk-bans-hezbollah

Given the long association with the hijab imposed upon Muslim women in oppressive male patriarchies such as Iran and Saudi  Arabia today, the question of whether the hijab recently donned and extensively worn by the Prime Minister was appropriate, even given her obvious attempt to express  the sadness and horror felt New Zealanders nationwide at the shocking massacre of a Muslim people in Christchurch?

And from a concerned expatriate comes an important question – after viewing the photograph that went around the world of a young police officer wearing a hijab with a red rose, she asks – shouldn’t  the  police be more a-religious? That is, regardless of the religious and ethical beliefs of individual police members, are our police not required to act in a secular capacity, without fear or favour in carrying out law enforcement duties, preventing crime, maintaining public order and protecting private property – treating all citizens impartially and with respect?  Reportedly police officers dotted around Christchurch also wore green ribbons pinned to their chests as a sign of peace and solidarity. Another puzzled New Zealander says doubtfully that he is not sure the rose is appropriate for an officer on duty. Another concurs, in relation to the wearing of the hijab. “Agreed. These events smack of virtue-signalling as well as over-eagerness to appease members of a religion whose extremists are unfortunately associated with violence elsewhere.”

While this attack on a peaceful Muslim group in Christchurch profoundly shocked and was deplored by the whole country, New Zealanders are not naïve and know that Islam itself is involved with violence worldwide – even turning uponmoderate Muslims  to achieve its aims. There is little doubt that while New Zealanders’ reaction to the dreadful killings in Christchurch has been one of total support to all involved, some troubling issues have emerged.

Chief among people’s concerns have been what is seen as the opportunity for  inappropriate knee-jerk reactions by Jacinda Ardern’s government. Governments never lose any opportunity to increase their power, and many from the conservative majority in this country, people working to provide a future for themselves –  concerned at the constant intrusion of government into all our lives – may now feel that  the fringe extremist groups – to which successive governments have long given listening priority _ will be working to make the most of this opportunity to gain even further mileage.

There is no doubt that most New Zealanders feel disenfranchised from the decisions made by our political parties and their all-controlling hierarchies in relation to issues which very much determine the directions in which we are going. While our media’s love affair with Ardern extends to all her decision-making, many New Zealanders are questioning the suitability – (or rather the lack of appropriateness) of  broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer over our national radio – and centres-taging a Muslim prayer in parliament – given that any references to Christianity in our House of Representatives have been high-handedly removed – in spite of very strong protest.

When he was appointed Speaker of the House, the left-wing, former Labour MP Trevor Mallard took it upon himself to remove from Parliament our  traditional prayer,  and references to the Queen. Predictably, he provided for a vague prayer to be made to a God  in te reo  Maori – (now  regarded by many as having been so substantially reinvented and elasticised that it bears minimal relationship to the genuine Maori language). Equally predictably, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern  supported Mr Mallard – even in the face of the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and other MPs saying that this is a decision that should have been left to the whole House  – not just to one person.

What has gradually happened in this country is troubling very many New Zealanders – as is the question of whether our police are moving towards more activist statements and positions  – even give the worthiness of current issues – (or not,  as the case may be). This question came to the limelight when Police Commissioner Mike Bush favoured showing support for the fringe event of the Hero Parade staged by the LGBT community and its various subcultures – when police were actually encouraged to take up an activist stance by marching in this parade. Incredibly enough, a police car was painted in rainbow colours and police encouraged to wear pink shirts. Viewed by many as a concerning partisan stance, it also raised eyebrows about whether it showed questionable judgment.

This is an interesting issue, given no indication of similar extra support showed to conservative Christian groups in this country, or to pro-life organisations  speaking for the rights of those most vulnerable of all New Zealanders, the unborn children… or even to extending extra support to the Falun Gong  against Communist Chinese displeasure at protests by these brave people  trying to draw New Zealanders’ attention to the removal of vital organs from their fellow countrymen in the horrific practices by Communist Chinese.

Many will also recall the then Prime Minister Jenny Shipley’s order for  New Zealanders  peacefully protesting in Christchurch about China’s invasion of Tibet to be removed further away by the police – with buses placed in front of them to obscure them from the sight of a visiting Chinese delegation.

How much our police  are controlled by the government is an interesting issue. And when MPs were told into 2015 by Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully that they were to avoid events involving the Falung Gong late in May because the Chinese Embassy would monitor them and lodge official protests, Labour Foreign Affairs spokesman David  Shearer,  to his credit, said such a warning had no place in a free society. The leaked email was aimed at National MPs, but sent in error to others. As Shearer remarked , “New Zealand has a proud history of free speech, freedom of religion, and an independent foreign policy. It should be Kiwis, and Kiwis, only who should decide where they go  and who (sic) they should  associate with. He added  that this should not be dictated by McCully and his ministry because they felt  it might upset another country, and that, “It was further evidence of a government that had lost its way, as well as its moral compass, and the principles on which New Zealand was founded”.

One of these important principles is that of free speech  –  and this is an area where many New Zealanders now feel they are being threatened and monitored – with a resulting consequence that they can be accused of the nebulous “hate speech”  – simply by  speaking their mind honestly and truthfully about what many see as growing divisions, by no means accidentally fostered, within our society.

The politically correct constant claim about the need for diversity, for example, ignores one very important point. So-called diversity leads to divisiveness, and divisiveness leads to divisions. Yet a country divided against itself becomes destabilised. Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves who stands to benefit from this.

© Amy Brooke – See www.100days.co.nz and https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

And a must read – see below.

The Chilling Crackdown on Freedom and the Uncritical Elevation of Islam Following Christchurch. From the Australian commmentator, Bill Muehlenberg  (edited).Mar 24, 2019

If you are reading this article – or this website – you are doing well. I really do not believe both will be around a whole lot longer – not the way the crackdown on free speech is going. Throughout the West the forces of intolerance and bigotry – yes, the secular left – are doing all they can to stamp out all points of view but their own.

And leading the way here is how the left is seeking to make all criticism of Islam illegal. Demands have been made for decades now that all criticism and critical assessment of Islam become verboten, and after Christchurch this is ramping up even further.

The Islamic war on freedom, free speech and the West – aided and abetted by the left – is now moving along very nicely, and anyone with eyes wide open has good reason to be very concerned. Daily now we see moves to restrict our freedoms and constrain free speech.

A few recent examples can be noted here. Recently in the UK an African street preacher was arrested for simply proclaiming the gospel in public. As I wrote on February 28, “A black street pastor, believed to be a Nigerian man, was arrested in London on 23 February apparently for an alleged ‘breach of the peace’ as he preached the Gospel outside Southgate Underground Station.”
billmuehlenberg.com/2019/02/28/how-the-west-was-won-and-lost/

When the Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was asked about this worrying case involving Oluwole Ilesanmi, he could not give a straight answer, but mumbled about the importance of free speech. When asked if street preachers could freely read from the Bible on the streets of London, he simply said that he had not read all of it. Andrea Williams, head of the Christian Legal Centre, said this about the case:

“Street preaching in the UK has a long, storied history. Open air preaching is the only way to guarantee that all the public is given the opportunity to respond to the love of Jesus Christ. But despite laws that theoretically support the freedom to preach in public, in practice, police officers are quick to silence preachers after any suggestion (often false) of Islamophobia or homophobia. This is not only unjust, but chills free speech through self-censorship. We want to see police officers protect the freedom of street preachers by only using their powers when truly necessary. “
www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2019/march/british-police-finally-admit-driving-street-preacher-out-of-london-neighborhood-to-silence-him

But let’s look further at the fallout from the Christchurch shooting. I have already mentioned some of them, including how one New Zealand book chain has pulled the best-selling book 12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson simply because he dared to pose with some fan who had a t-shirt on which was critical of Islam.

A private business is free to do what it wants I suppose, but the rank hypocrisy here is sickening. As has been pointed out, while Whitcoulls has ditched Peterson’s book – which has sold millions of copies and helped so many people – it is still happily selling Hitler’s Mein Kampf!

Consider also some political fallout from this. On Tuesday March 19 Islamic prayers were heard in the New Zealand Parliament in a further “show of solidarity.” Um, whatever happened to the separation of mosque and state? Recall that over a year ago New Zealand dumped any mention of Jesus in its parliamentary prayer. As one report said at the time:

Mentions of Jesus and the Queen have been removed from Parliament’s Te reo karakia, or prayer. A consultation period for the new karakia isn’t over yet but the Speaker of the House, Trevor Mallard, has already adopted it, RNZ reports. That’s been causing concern amongst some in opposition, but Mallard says he’ll consider any feedback before a final decision is made.
www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98742522/parliament-prayer-changes–no-more-queen-or-jesus

And on Friday Muslim prayers were broadcast around the nation with full, official government support and backing. Not only that but many schools were strongly encouraging their female students to wear a hijab in support. But I thought education in NZ was supposed to be secular?

Many are now wondering if the aim here is the eventual Islamisation of New Zealand. If so, not bad, considering only one per cent of its population is Muslim. While Christians make up around half of New Zealand’s population, it seems they have nowhere near such influence.

And recall that the previous Friday various newsreaders for the evening news in New Zealand had donned the hijab for yet more ‘solidarity’ and ‘identification’ with the Muslim community. Wow. Talk about falling over themselves in an attempt to appease Muslims while effectively slapping the faces of those in the Christian community and other faith-based or even non-faith-based groups in NZ.

And even more frightening was this recent headline: “Hijab wearing police officer’s photo makes powerful statement in wake of Christchurch mosque shootings”. I offer the photo of this above.
www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111491996/hijab-wearing-police-officers-photo-makes-powerful-statement-in-wake-of-christchurch-mosque-shootings

And the NZ shooting is also having quite an impact overseas. Consider a case in Canada where an atheist – not a Christian – who happens to be an ex-Muslim, has had his speech cancelled because of the NZ shooting:

An ex-Muslim who is now an atheist and secular activist says Mount Royal University is overreacting by canceling his talk that was planned on campus for Thursday. Armin Navabi, who lives in British Columbia, was being brought in by the Atheist Society of Calgary to share his journey and discuss the reasons he doesn’t believe the Islamic faith can be reformed. But now he says he’s disappointed he won’t get a chance to engage in some passionate discussions with staff and students, including those who still practice Islam, because of MRU’s last-minute decision.

“What do they want? Do you want to have less conversation? Isn’t less conversation exactly what leads to people having extreme radical positions,” said Navabi. “I mean the less words exchanged between us, the more fists and bullets are going to exchange between people. Having more conversations is exactly what you need in the face of some tragedy like this.”
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mount-royal-university-armin-navabi-new-zealand-ex-muslim-atheist-speech-1.5065319

But wait, there’s more. Get a load of this one: “A petition started in France is circulating online for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for her response to the shooting massacre in Christchurch.” Wow! Let’s just go all the way and proclaim her to be the Messiah!
www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111502795/international-petition-pushes-for-jacinda-ardern-to-get-the-nobel-peace-prize

Plenty more examples of leftism spiralling out of control, and the curbing of various freedoms as well as free speech could be offered here. The horrible NZ massacre – as chilling as it was – is now being used all over the world to push something Muslims have been keen to push: the end of all criticism of Islam.

Indeed, Muslims have long sought to shut down all criticism of Islam by any means possible. There are far too many examples of this to recount here. Let me just offer a few. A decade ago this was even being pushed at the UN level. The Organization of the Islamic Conference pushed U.N. Resolution 62/154, on “Combating defamation of religions.” It sought to have Islam be officially shielded from any criticism.

Countless other such calls have been made over the years. And following the Christchurch massacre we are again hearing such calls, loud and clear. Let me give just one more as an example, this time back here in Australia. As we have heard so often before, Islamic leaders are again calling for the end of critical commentary on Islam. As one report puts it:

The Grand Mufti of Australia and New Zealand Ibrahim Abu Mohamed has called on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to push for new laws to greater protect Muslims against Islamaphobia. Dr Mohamed met with Mr Morrison following Friday’s Christchurch mosque massacre which claimed 50 lives.

He told SBS Arabic24 that he brought three items to the table during the meeting, including his request for the introduction of new laws which would make it an offence to discriminate against Muslims. He noted that such laws would be similar to those in place in numerous countries which protect Jews against antisemitic speech.

Section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act prohibits actions, including what is widely called hate speech, that “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people” based on their race. However, comments directed towards Muslims are said towards people who adhere to the Islamic faith, not at a racial group. He also asked Mr Morrison to ensure that the Christchurch attack was “documented” in a way that it would “go down in history as a terrible massacre”.
www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/arabic/en/article/2019/03/18/grand-mufti-calls-new-laws-protect-muslims-against-virus-racism?fbclid=IwAR1w6_nJ5Bhyy8mxwWRnaGHlRia_t5_WB8mWEdLOveJGs1tdtJySdZK0hWY

Section 18C has of course already been a disaster when it comes to free speech, and this Muslim leader wants to make it much worse. We should be getting rid of 18C altogether, not adding more to this draconian piece of Australian law – a case that I have made elsewhere.

By  Bill Muehlenberg (edited).

 

 

Open Letter to Winston – Jacinda is way out of line

Dear Winston –Please don’t shift your ground on a promise you made – and yes – it wasn’t an If…or a Maybe. It was an unequivocal undertaking. So many have trusted you. That’s important. So, as you know, is your integrity. So is public perception.  To now reportedly hint that it would be fair enough to back off your pledge to abolish the divisive Maori seats in Parliament,  because the Maori Party failed to win any, this recent election, is imply not good enough. You will be well aware that as long as the provision for the Maori seats exist, in law, they can be contested again, in a coming election.

This is an open letter to tell you how dismayed, even betrayed, so many thousands of New Zealanders will now feel if you shift your stance on your pledge to call for a referendum on at last removing these anachronistic seats in parliament. You know they are racist.  You gave your pledge as a bottom line. And as far as so many of us are  concerned, you were  actually promising what was long recommended, so that the country can at last say – We are one – or at least strive for equality for all, under the law.

Remember the democratic principle so very conveniently sidelined in recent years – as the white-anting of our New Zealand society has undermined our foundations?  This was the founding concept of modern democracy – pledging fundamental and equal rights to all people in law, regardless of colour, race, gender, or creed.  Any whittling away at this fundamental principle of a genuine democracy diminishes us all.

Recent vote-buying governments, persuaded by now very wealthy and powerful iwi, have backed away from keeping their word – as National did, to its shame. This breaking of a social contract, a pledge given to voters by a party leader, was not only regarded as an act of betrayal. It also lessened even further the respect in which politicians would like to think they are held. Equally damagingly, it takes away from so many the hope that New Zealanders try to hold fast to – of a country in which they once more count, a stable, undivided, peaceful society, respecting the values of those who fought to make this a better country.

 But we’re going backwards – not forwards. And retention of the outdated Maori seats, giving special advantages to those with even the very smallest part-Maori, genetic inheritance (Why?) is contributing to a growing push now towards promoting anything touching on Maori as inherently superior. Again – Why? The whitewashing of the realities of pre-European settlement country, of never-ending internecine tribal wars, of the barbarities of a ruling priestly and warrior class inflicting the cruelties of slavery, barbaric practises and the horrors of cannibalism, are no reason for regarding it as desirable that throughout the country, local government and statutory boards should be forced to kowtow to the supposedly superior insights provided by any individuals with even a sixteenth or  a thirty-second genetic inheritance from  the past.

You will be aware that the Auckland Council is seeking a legislative change to make an elected Maori councillor role compulsory. Incredible!  Even though Auckland councillors themselves have voted 10 to five against introducing a Maori ward. As one commentator has noted, the council’s attitude now equates to (with deeply Orwellian logic…)We can’t trust the majority of the public to vote for what we want – even though we’ve relied on them voting for us – so we therefore will subvert the democratic process…”

All around the country, the opposition to forcing local bodies and government liaison committees to grant special voting rights to unelected individuals on the basis of a part-Maori inheritance has been overwhelmingly rejected, as you know. Yet not for a moment has this past National government taken any notice of the wishes of the majority.

New Zealanders are not fools, and we now have a total contradiction of democratic values and freedoms by an overbearing government, pressured by the now immensely wealthy iwi (the Maori economy now is estimated at about $50 billion dollars. Most of this has been successfully withheld by the rich tribal corporations, with their tax-free status – (Why?)  – from an underclass of their own people in desperate need.

Removing the Maori seats in Parliament is a hugely important move – the very first step towards dismantling the new apartheid we have created – by which some are now more equal than others. And because of this and the vested interest these extraordinarily wealthy iwi have in promoting their own position and influence, and obtaining even more economic advantage for themselves, you will be under considerable pressure to walk away from that promise you gave the public.

You will also be under pressure because the present Labour Leader, Jacinda Ardern, is trying to manipulate you into giving in to her ill-thought determination to ignore the wishes of the country and have her own way  – with regard to preserving the seats.

Her attitude is inexcusable, given that able Members of Parliament of part- Maori descent are now to be found across the spectrum of political parties in Parliament. Labour itself has part-Maori members, National others. There are reportedly now 29 part-Maori MPs in total – strong proof that there is no discrimination against individuals of Maori descent winning  a place  in the House. 

Your own credentials as leader of New Zealand First and of part-Maori descent, long recognising the damage being inflicted on the country by the retention of Maori-only seats, are considerably superior to those of Miss Ardern. She is compromising herself intellectually by refusing to acknowledge that, given a part Maori genetic inheritance is no barrier to becoming a member of Parliament, there is no possible excuse for maintaining the Maori seats. This is doubly so, given that, to date the interests of this racist party have been to wrest even more provisions from the majority of New Zealanders.

Jacinda needs to drop her born-to-rule assumption, and acknowledge that it is not up to her to decide whether or not the Maori seats should be abolished. We’ve had to put up this sort of high-handed attitude from our MPs for too long. The decision is one for the people of New Zealand – not a handful of her Labour Party insiders. It’s time for her to take that on board, not arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that the decision does not belong to a politically-motivated group completely out of touch with most New Zealanders’ objections to this racist provision.

I sincerely hope you yourself have been misreported. Because if you renege on your commitment to put the abolishing of the Maori seats to the public at large in a binding referendum, then so many New Zealanders who have put their trust in you on this issue will loathe you. They are fed up with politicians promising one thing and doing another. Moreover, your stated intention to do this will certainly have meant a rise in the number of voters looking to your party.

The feeling of anger at the maintaining of special privileges, special scholarships, special treatment given in nearly all our institutions to those with even a claimed smidgen of Maori genetic inheritance, is now widespread  – with good reason.

What you were reported as saying in the National Business Review at the time will have given heart to so many. I quote:  “The fact is, Maori don’t need to be told they are not good enough to be equal, or that somehow they should be handicapped, that somehow they should be pigeon-holed,” Mr Peters said.

New Zealanders have taken this to mean that this referendum will be put to the whole country. To confine it to Maori alone – as you then seemed to subsequently be considering, would hardly be logical. It would be like asking the fox to vote for the abolition of hens.

Furthermore, any move to confine the referendum to those claiming to be Maori could be challenged on legal grounds.

There is no longer any definition of Maori. The former logical definition was done away with in the mid-70s by those with their eyes to the main chance – i.e. their ability to  include others  in their number who were, and are, predominantly European (or of other descent) as “Maori”  – in order to show a greater numerical strength  – aware of the political pressure they could then wield.

But it is obviously legally possible to challenge the definition of “Maori” – when those with less than half a Maori genetic inheritance claim to be basically Maori although they obviously aren’t – by any scientific assessment.

Canadian Judge Thomas R Berger travelled around Alaska in the late 1980s to interview the people, Indians, and Inuit, who lived in the villages. When the ANCSA (Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act) was reviewed, the cut-off point for declaring oneself of aboriginal (native) descent was a generous one. One could still be considered aboriginal (Inuit or Indian) if one had a quarter (25%) genetic inheritance. Below this, one was regarded as being predominantly not aboriginal, and therefore unable to claim this.  So why are we allowing this farcical situation in New Zealand?

Many of the most vociferous claimants to disadvantage – (or, contrariwise, of superior insight) because of a purported Maori genetic inheritance – are in fact not even one-quarter Maori. Yet we have allowed them to queue up for special benefits, courtesy of the taxpayer – which is basically a rort. Moreover, the Anglican Church has been silly enough – as have others -to say that one is Maori – and is entitled to be regarded as Maori, simply- if one “feels Maori”.

This is a nonsense. If I were deranged I could possibly regard myself as an Arab – or an Australian aborigine…or even an animal of some sort. But any “feeling” I might have would be at odds with the reality that I’m none of these. .

If you change your mind, and kowtow to the present Labour leader’s claim that she will not allow the discussion in relation to your undertaking to put the future of the Maori seats to the public at large to decide (and the country had no doubt that you meant a referendum binding on all) to be part of any discussion concerning a possible coalition, then she is not only being very foolish – but you would be honour bound to reject her terms. Nor should any referendum be confined confined to Maori only. Such a proposal would face formidable legal challenges, given that there is no longer any actual definition of Maori – all of whom are now part-Maori only.

Furthermore – it is also not accurate to say that such a referendum would be relevant only to part-Maori.  All other New Zealanders have been required to contribute financially  to supporting the Maori seats – and so, too,  the Maori Party…a prime example of the cost to the country at large of this ongoing movement to give one sector of the community special rights – at the expense of the majority.

I’m sure you personally are well aware that prioritising identity politics has been destructive and divisive to New Zealand. The only ones to benefit from it are those well and truly milking the system – at the expense of us all.

I’m afraid, Winston, that if you do not want your integrity to be doubted by those who have long supported you – because of your much-respected commitment to a unified country, it will not do for you for you to renege upon, or equivocate about, your original promise to mount a binding referendum – to be put to all the country.

Many New Zealanders have consistently supported your stated aims and defended you against your detractors. They will not want to continue to do so, if you break your word. And you would deservedly lose the respect in which many hold you for your long stand against the inherent corruption of race-based politics. We must trust you on this.

Kind regards

Amy

 

© 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.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!