Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media /police activism.

Jacinda Ardern’s partner is not going to have it easy. Media and police activism.

 In the gossip circles of a basically close-knit mainstream media, it was reported some time back that unpleasant rumours were swirling about the Prime Minister’s partner. It was called “an unprecedented assault of baseless rumour and false innuendo.” Toxic gossip is not new in these circles. Who can forget the tragic case of the beautiful Charlotte Dawson, a media celebrity in New Zealand which she fled for Australia later, saying that she was “savaged” as a celebrity living in this country? “New Zealand is small and nasty and vindictive. It’s a tiny little village…a tiny country at the end of the year,” she said. Her death by suicide shocked so many – as it should have.

The relevant question is, was she right? Who would deny that the political scene is a toxic one with the jostling for power and ambition underpinning many of the rumours that surface – very often never reaching the public at large, but gaining currency in the media in-groups. The latter have now become equally as little respected – so much so that politicians and the mass media are near the bottom of the least-trusted occupations.  This is tough on those journalists who do try to write with integrity against the tide of the times, including some well worth respect. That they are apparently now in a minority makes it harder for them.

No doubt the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford will have a tough road ahead – even disregarding the media rumour mill. New Zealanders will wish her well, with the imminent arrival of her baby. However, paralleling the usual corresponding euphoria which surrounds any “progressive” celebrities, many New Zealanders have been troubled by Arden’s decision to prioritise her own career over what they see as the best interests of a baby…whose primary caregiver, for very good reason, has traditionally been regarded as its mother. By no means isolated comment also maintains she should have let the country know, before the election, that she was pregnant.

However, there is little doubt that Labour’s strategists would have known that if the country knew before the election that its leader was carrying a baby, many would have been concerned – wondering if a vote for her, in such a demanding job, was in the best interests of the child – let alone for the Prime Minister herself.

We cannot but be aware that many solo mothers have a far more demanding life than those with a husband to support them. Where a deliberate decision has been made for someone in Jacinda Arden’s position to not marry the father of her child, questions are asked. The liberal views of so many self-congratulatory but under-informed media are by no means, as so many journalists seem to take for granted, reflected back by the far more conservative country at large. Memories are surfacing of the younger political Ardern, steeped deep in socialist doctrine, choosing to use the word Comrade…as well as of socialists’ contempt for the family unit, regarding marriage contemptuously as a ”bourgeois” practice. But evidence overwhelmingly points to the presence of married parents, a mother and father, as in the best interests of the child.

Labour is very much a minority government, attracting only 37% of the vote.  It cannot claim to have a mandate for some of the ill-thought directions on which it has now embarked, including the foolish clampdown on any further gas and oil exploration – moving into typical ideologically-motivated, deep Green territory.  Disgracefully, vitally important decisions are being made behind the scenes by the coalition’s party hierarchy without even Cabinet involvement!  Buying lock stock and barrel into the now massively discredited global warming theory is costing the country hugely in economic terms. Little wonder there is rising concern about its decision-making.

The media reporting which has so obligingly avoided any of these issues of concern out in the wider community has been interesting.  Long-time journalist Barry Soper describes Clarke Gayford  “as being in the social pages long before he’d ever hooked up with Ardern – “he was a man about town.” It’s a curious, almost Edwardian description, whose meaning is not clear. But it does highlight the fact that Mr Gayford, handed the role of primary caregiver for their child, is being asked to make a considerable sacrifice, very much limiting his career and social activities – as any mother in the same position could tell him. And how demanding a role it will be for Ms Ardern, juggling her initial few weeks away from Parliament while expecting to be in constant touch with what is happening. The question still stands, whether this demanding scenario is likely to be in the best interests of the baby – let alone the mother, in those very early days.

Interesting, too, is Barry Soper’s casual mention of the fact that he texted Ardern, outlining the rumours, suggesting she or her partner should address them, and offering them a media platform to do it. His comment that, “The only reply came from her press secretary, insisting that the rumours were false and she wouldn’t be commenting on them” sounded almost miffed – as if he was expecting the Prime Minister to be personally responding to him.

This is an interesting point, because I recall journalist friends taking for granted the fact that they had Prime Minister Helen Clark’s cellphone number and could reach her for direct comment. Reportedly this worked two ways – Clark could leak to chosen media statements she wished to go further. However, whether the preferential, two-way access of selected media to the leader of the country is appropriate is another issue.

This political journalist did make one very valid point when he said that it was a mistake for Police Superintendent Mike Bush to become involved by approving the statement denying that Gayford had been the subject of a police enquiry, and saying he’d never been charged in relation to any matter.  In Soper’s words, “This simply stokes the rumour mill, and opens up the suggestion that the police have become politicised. It is unprecedented for the cops to become involved in what are unsubstantiated rumours. The question’s already been asked: Who requested the Police Commissioner’s involvement?”

Who indeed?

However, it’s over late in the day to wonder whether or not the police have become politicised and partisan in their activities when we have evidence this is already the case. Equally, we have evidence that mainstream media, with now strong liberal Left leanings, are not only highly selective when publishing what takes their fancy, but now routinely suppress letters to the editor from correspondents when the content challenges their thinking – and their bias.

I’m waiting still for a reply from the Press Council – now many weeks overdue, which this august body has not yet even acknowledged receiving – even though it promises receipt of a formal complaint within two days. A follow-up enquiry has also been ignored.  As I am familiar with two or three of the names on this council, I am not holding my breath in expectation of the response to which it is supposedly publicly committed.  However, if my third enquiry continues to be ignored, then it will be time to check to whom the Press Council itself is answerable.

The are serious issues, questions of accountability, and the suppression by the Nelson Mail of the letters below some weeks back – and a follow-up enquiry made to this newspaper – is an important matter  – because the content of these letters involves what Barry Soper is questioning  –  an arguably inappropriate police involvement in a highly politicised situation. Given the Fairfax media’s now quite blatant practice of featuring editorials and opinion pieces which allow no genuine consideration of those radicalised issues of the day which attack family values – and of refusing to publish letters legitimately expressing genuine concern, it is no wonder its newspapers are closing down all over the country.

“Dear Editor  “For the police to publicly favour the “lesbian, gay, transgender, queer, intersex and questioning” movement now becoming confrontational and aggressive is quite shocking. Those warring with the biological fact of being born male are actively targeting and recruiting vulnerable children in schools, while demanding to share women’s and children’s toilets.

“Using the weasel excuse of “discrimination”, children are being prescribed pernicious “sex education” programmes detailing as perfectly acceptable what many consider abnormal – with the word “normal” now ridiculously regarded as “hate speech”.  “

Under the banner of that other weasel word, “diversity”, police marched in the Auckland Pride campaign with rainbow colours on a police car. Individuals’ free choice must always be respected. But Police Commissioner Mike Bush’s partisan policy stance, offering recruitment support, is inappropriate and unacceptable. When have the police ever marched in a parade supporting Christian values, or any other of those core values underpinning our society?

“Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson’s courageous confrontation of this destructive counterculture war, and of the moral relativism now flooding the West, is attracting capacity crowds. Commissioner Bush should reflect on the fact that among the loudest support from Jordan’s young audiences is for his appeal for the sanctity of marriage, and child-rearing.”

Although this letter makes important points –they are not ones which the majority of today’s journalists wish to hear. The Editor of the Nelson Mail is apparently no exception. Churchill’s very important reminder to “Never, ever, ever quit,” is one that too many, deeply concerned about what is happening to New Zealand, seem to have forgotten.  Yet it is the key to winning back this country.

So I wrote again as below…although I by no means support the National Party – nor any political party for that matter, given the accumulative damage they have all caused to this country. Only by working toward what the clever Swiss have achieved, control of our politicians (www.100days.co.nz) so that New Zealanders themselves can make the decisions about our directions ahead, will we be able to mount an effective challenge to being ruled by today’s politburo. However, after a typically unbalanced editorial quite common now for this newspaper, I felt it was not good enough to walk away.  Hence this follow-up.

“Dear Editor

“The Nelson Mail’s increasingly “liberal” editorials apparently take for granted the majority of the community feels the same. For example, you noted the new leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges, voted against same-sex marriage and opposes euthanasia. You reported he goes to church and his father was a Baptist Minister  – (are we meant to recoil with horror?) – stating this puts him not only at odds with “the liberal faction”, but “potentially the momentum of popular opinion in this country and around the world”.

”It’s a leap too far. You offer no sound evidence to substantiate such an extravagant claim. Obviously the unpleasant targeting of those concerned about the worrying directions of the day – (particularly families and parents) – deters much feedback. So does the now common, bullying tactic of calling “homophobic” those who question abandoning the values so long stabilising our society.  Many will not agree with the partisan stance inappropriately shown by the police hierarchy marching in the LGBTQIA parade in Auckland – nor with schools now offering programmes which disturb many children, confusing them about their sexual identity.

“Apparently encouraging “diversity” doesn’t extend to supporting genuine debate?  And only extremist groups’ “cultural sensitivity” counts?”

Needless to say, this letter also did not get published.   However, there are  ways around this, and cancelling your support for any Stuff – Fairfax media publication to access local news and correspondence from other sources available  is a very good strategy.

These are increasingly important issues for us all – and what is equally as important is the fact that the police hierarchy felt it appropriate to take a stand which must have made many individual police deeply uncomfortable. It’s time Commissioner Bush was indeed called upon to explain his inappropriate, apparently personal partisanship in relation to an issue causing so much concern to the wider community.

What are our prospects ahead, if we have a corrupt democracy and corrupt media?  As Toby Young points out in a recent Spectator, “a lack of democratic accountability leads to the corruption of the political class”.

What democratic accountability do we have in this country, when, as West Coast MP Damien O’Connor recently stated, the decisions are made by the party hierarchy. Nick Smith also admitted, during the doggedly charming John Key’s tight-fisted control of his party that when the leader says  jump, he asks how high…

MPs are supposed to represent their electorates – nobody believes this any more. MPs now largely do as they’re told. The corruption of the political class is apparently well under way in New Zealand.

While party politics controls the country, instead of New Zealanders themselves  – the achievable way the Swiss have shown us – we’ll continue to pay a huge price for the basic incompetence and sheer ignorance underpinning so much of the decision-making we’ve been inflicted with is recent years. And look what it’s done to this 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 Amazons Kindle.

 

 

 

The politics of corruption? Why are we paying the Clintons?

It was Bill and Hillary Clinton whose highly unsavoury carryings-on caused political commentator Christopher Hitchens to call his book Nobody Left to Lie To  – exposing what was happening behind-the-scenes during Bill Clinton’s deservedly controversial presidency.  For a reality check on what the Clintons got up to, this book is a must.   It is possibly the one book by this prolific writer that his brilliant brother, Peter, who wrote the highly readable and prescient book, The Abolition of Britain, and the equally important The Abolition of Liberty, would have endorsed.  Peter’s thinking was very much opposed to his brother’s, and his warnings have been prophetic. The ideologically-opposed Christopher, who started out as a Democrat, was ultimately shocked and repelled by the activities of this constantly media-lauded pair.

So what possible excuse, given that it is obvious by now that we are a well and truly cash-strapped country, does our government have for forcing New Zealanders to support the highly dubious Clinton Foundation?  https://www.investors.com/politics/clinton-foundation-scandal/ 

 Even Australia has put a stop to payments to this controversial, FBI-investigated Foundation. And given the fact that New Zealand is now cash-strapped,  living on borrowed money, why is our Labour coalition continuing such handouts? New Zealanders are waking up to the fact that we have been basically conned about how well National was balancing the books, while culpably under-funding even basic hospital and mental health services to a shocking extent – and failing to prioritise urgent housing needs – while, at the same time, continuing to pour hundreds of millions of our dollars accumulatively into the coffers of self-serving iwi prepared to even falsify their claims with a view to the main chance.  

Why was Hillary Clinton even in New Zealand recently? My local paper, The Nelson Mail, going from bad to worse without much apparent effort, now regularly regurgitates Stuff reports so embarrassingly biased and under-informed that that they are almost incredible. Hence its usual euphoria about the wonderful Hillary, and the baby-talk between her and our pregnant Prime Minister. One should hand it to our mainstream media, constantly increasing their reputation for awful print, TV and broadcasting journalism, and exceeding themselves in relation to this scandal-ridden woman…while losing no opportunity to demonise Trump. 

Lindsay Perigo’s comments highlight the inexcusable difference between the basically fawning treatment Hillary Clinton was given, and what should have been asked…”really tough questions—about Benghazi, Uraniumgate, deleted e-mails, the illegal private server, rigging the campaign against Bernie, paying for the dirty dossier against Trump, accepting squillions of dollars from Muslim countries that are yoooooge on women’s rights, etc. ” Lindsay long warned of the new era of brain-dead media.  We could have also asked Hillary if her record of proven lying (among other porkies, she claimed she was named after Edmund Hillary…) ever causes her any embarrassment.

But, essentially why are our own pockets still being raided to donate to any pet project of the Clintons?

From an informed commentator, we have it that “It was John Key who started sending money to the Clinton Foundation – $7 million, without any approval from anyone. He departed the day it was announced! But Bill English sent another ‘donation’ of $5 million not long afterwards.”
Why? http://alcp.org.nz/node/278  But this was by no means the only time Key acted without the country’s approval, with English, seemingly, his over-loyal yes-man.

It all continues. Recently from Jordan Williams, Executive Director, New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, to another correspondent:

“Earlier today we went public with documents obtained under the Official Information Act showing the new Government is giving more taxpayer money to a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation – the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

“We can reveal that the Clinton Initiative will receive $5.5 million in 2018/19, on top of the $8 million taxpayers forked out under the previous Government.

“Remember: the Clinton Foundation is currently under investigation by the FBI over the way it obtained funding from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State. It was during this period that the previous Government started funding it.

“This evening, Secretary Clinton is rubbing shoulders with political and business leaders in Auckland. We have called on the new Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, to politely wait until Ms Clinton leaves the country, then announce an end to funding for the Clinton Health Access Initiative.”

Labour is now going down a well-worn path if it continues with this inexcusable give-away of public money as, at the same time, it ramps up the equally inexcusable prioritising of racist preferences for those claiming to be part-Maori (no actual proof needed – and no valid reason supplied). This, while knee-capping the country by refusing to allow any more oil and gas exploration, and planning to tax New Zealanders even further in relation to the now conclusively disproved, man-made global warning beat-up…so passionately still promoted by scientists whose funding has depended on this.

Stupid is as stupid does – but it is we New Zealanders paying the price for this basic incompetence,  if not political corruption, in the constant kow-towing to wealthy vested-interest groups

The level of possible corruption  within the National Party is now being brought home to New Zealanders, together with the fact that a former  Chinese Communist with a very dubious political record is now a National Party MP  (!)  Granted a high List placing (why?) Jian Yang, was reportedly of interest to the SIS.  Strangely enough, he did not mention in his CV the decade he spent in the People’s liberation Army-Air Force Engineering College, or the Luoyang Language Institute – run by China’s equivalent of the United State’s National Security Agency which conducts spying activities for China. 

The majority of National’s campaign funding before the last election was given by wealthy Communist Chinese backers (no doubt the same who understandably pressured the seemingly only too willing John Key to remove the Union Jack from our flag). And questions still need to be asked about why highly productive farmland was handed over to Communist-Chinese backed companies which are now reportedly finding it convenient for military-related use.  Why in fact were the Crayfar farms not available to be bought in New Zealand except as a job lot – putting them out of the reach of New Zealand buyers – when they were advertised for sale individually overseas?

Some will be shocked – but others will not find it at all surprising that a “Blue Dragon”-called group of Chinese supporters now exists within the National Party to prioritise Chinese interests. Plus ça change?  Not our political parties’ naivety. Jacinda Arden is also sure we have no Russian spies in New Zealand, a claim so embarrassing that a well-respected analyst regards it as turning us into a laughing-stock.

 Our predominately liberal-left New Zealand media have a uncanny ability to unfailingly lionise individuals like the more than the controversial Clintons and Barack Obama, the most un-American President of all, controversially enabling Iran to work towards an eventual nuclear capacity, while not requiring any concessions with regard to its oppressive treatment of women, and those fighting for an end to its ongoing persecutions of dissidents. Iran is perceived as even now engaging in clandestine efforts in clear contradiction to the Iran nuclear deal.  Repugnantly, the pro-abortion Barack Obama even, like the Clintons, favours the horrific, partial birth abortions so shocking more and more Americans. Then we have our own media-loved politicians like the agenda-driven Helen Clark – intent on her One World Government ideology, who so successfully set out to destroy the combat wing of our air force…her excuse reported to be the ridiculous and provedly wrong claim that, “We live in an incredibly benign environment.”

We can count on our own, now historically and thoroughly ill-educated mainstream media commentators to think how wonderful they all are. But away from the heady circles of these gossipy and credulous fellow travellers, it would be a very naive New Zealander who isn’t now well aware some of today’s prominent world leaders are committed activists, with little apparent intention of putting the interests of their country before their own agenda.

However, they attract no much-needed scrutiny from our commentariat.  Canada’s embarrassingly juvenile and bullying Trudeau; France’s controversial Macron, who supports the open-door policy towards migrants from The Middle East and Africa pursued by Angela Merkel  in Germany –  the same  Angela Merkel whose folly has caused the map of Europe to be ominously coloured with the star and crescent moon of a resurgent and militant Islam. Closer to home, Australia’s  beleaguered Turnbull’s costly,  ill-thought policies have taken from Australia any claim to be still called The Lucky Country.

And New Zealand? The stupid country?   However, the growing gap between what really is the silent majority,  increasingly concerned about the sell-out of our country, and the “useful idiots” of the mainstream media is growing. And what is really bad news for politicians, in relation to the all-time low in respect in which they are held by the country, is the  very timely sign of people’s willingness to support claiming this country back from those who have abused the principles of democratic representation.  

See –  www.100days.co.nz and Facebook-100daystoDemocracy.

For a much needed corrective to the our mainstream media’s incompetent analysis of what is happening,  in relation to issues which will, and do, impinge on this small county, it’s well worth spending the time to read the brilliant David Flint’s Aux Bien Pensants...written by the co-author of Give Us back Our Country, who acknowledges our prior initiative The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand…– outlined in my book of this title – as his prior inspiration.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/05/aux-bien-pensants-22/ 

© Amy Brooke, Convener, 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 Amazons 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.

 

For Best Practice Democracy – read The Spectator – below.

Losing our democracy….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm.

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

*

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