The real Western civilisation emergency?

The real Western civilisation emergency? 

The inexcusable, great global warming scam — and what it is going to cost us — is brilliantly illustrated by Melanie Phillips below.* It’s too important to miss!

And why are we finding that we now have to use wood burners even earlier each year in New Zealand? Ours and neighbours’ are now being used already in March — as they were, nearing the end of last year – when we’re supposed to be having global warming!

Remember Greenpeace? Another theory about why we have all been conned — this includes our governments and local bodies —has now been advanced by none other than the founder of Greenpeace *“Dr Patrick Moore, who subsequently saw the light. He suggested that after the failure of Soviet communism, neo-Marxists used green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than with the science of ecology.” 

And how much of the sheer ignorance of this anti-capitalist agenda has been shown by other mayors and local bodies around the country? Incredibly enough, in Nelson, Mayor Rachel Reese actually enthusiastically hugged members of Extinction Rebellion, the anarchist group gluing themselves to tunnels, roads, etc in Britain.

In a display of extraordinary gullibility Reese has seen to the Nelson City Council establishing an inexcusably  expensive undertaking to tackle Nelson’s non-existent climate change emergency, employing new staff, with all the salaries and equipment involved — and reportedly inappropriately diverting the funding from other council accounts to do so.  But we don’t have any climate change emergency in Nelson!  There’s absolutely no proof of this at all – so what excuse is there for  the Nelson City Council’s sheer gullibility  – and the rise of rates inflicted on an already overtaxed community? 

Don’t miss Melanie Philips below!  

©  Amy Brooke. Check out my book,  ” The 100 Days  – Claiming back New Zealand…What has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians“. Available from my website – http://www.amybrooke.co.nz – or from Amazon’s Kindle

CIVILISATION EMERGENCY

FEBRUARY 21, 2020 , by MELANIE Philips.  

*A few commentators have begun to stumble towards the fact that the policy of becoming “carbon neutral” by 2050, as adopted by the UK and the EU, would undo modernity itself.

On Unherd, Peter Franklin observes that, if carried through, the policy will have a far greater effect than Brexit or anything else; it will transform society altogether.

“It will continue to transform the power industry, and much else besides: every mode of transport; how we build, warm and cool our homes; food, agriculture and land use; trade, industry, every part of the economy”.

Franklin is correct. Even so, he seems not to grasp the full implications of the disaster he intuits – because he thinks there’s some kind of middle way through which the imminent eco-apocalypse can be prevented without returning Britain to the Middle Ages.

In similar vein he quotes Rachel Wolf, a co-author of the 2019 Conservative manifesto, who is prone to the same kind of magical thinking. She wrote:

“Government has committed to ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions because it does not want the side effects of the energy sources we have used for centuries to destroy the planet. At the same time, we do not want to return to an era where children (and their mothers) regularly died, and where the majority of people lived in what would now in the UK be considered wholly unacceptable poverty. This is a staggering challenge”.

This is what we might call an understatement. What is truly staggering is, first, that any sentient person thinks this can be done and, second, that it should be done.

For it’s not just that the carbon-neutral target will destroy the livelihoods and wreck the living standards of millions of people. It’s not even that it would take Britain and the west backwards to a pre-industrial way of life.

More fundamentally, it shows that policymakers and politicians – even those who may not fawn idiotically over Greta Thunberg and who rightly view Extinction Rebellion as a bunch of anarchist vandals – have not the slightest scintilla of a clue that the whole idea of a “climate emergency” is bogus from start to finish.

Those who point this out are vilified by the chillingly offensive term “climate-change deniers” and written off as a small bunch of cranks. This merely shows the terrifying effects of groupthink. The claim that “97 per cent” of scientists support the prediction of planetary disaster through anthropogenic global warming – a figure that is itself said to have misrepresented the evidence – denies the key scientific principle that science is never settled.

It also ignores the hundreds of scientists in related fields, many with stellar reputations and some of whom themselves served as expert reviewers for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change until they decided the IPCC was hijacking science for ideological ends, who have shown repeatedly that the evidence for a “climate emergency” doesn’t hold up for a moment.

What these scientists are telling us is that policy-makers are intending to destroy the west’s economic and social ecology even though:

  • There’s no evidence that current changes in the climate are different from the fluctuations in climate over the centuries;
  • The idea that the non-linear, chaotic and infinitely complex climate can be significantly affected by anything human beings may do is intrinsically absurd;
  • All climate forecasts are based on computer modelling which is unable to process this level of complexity and unpredictability, and which is also susceptible to false assumptions fed into the programmes which produce false results;
  • Much evidence of current environmental trends is ambiguous and contested;
  • Much climate-related research is scientifically illiterate or the product of outright intellectual fraud;
  • Scientists in climate-related fields can often only obtain grant funding if their research corresponds to apocalyptic AGW theory. This innate distorting mechanism will be hugely exacerbated by the $10 billion which Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has announced he is investing to “save Earth” from climate change, “the biggest threat to our planet”.

Nevertheless, scientists with intellectual and moral integrity are continuing to challenge this bogus science with actual facts. I reported several of these in my 2010 book, The World Turned Upside Down. Here are a few more recent examples.

  • Professor Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, has saidthat the World Meteorological Organisation is misleading the public by suggesting that global warming and its impacts are accelerating. He wrote:

Reading the WMO report, you would think that global warming was getting worse. But in fact it is carefully worded to give a false impression. The data are far more suggestive of an improvement than a deterioration. After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming “pause” of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”

“…The temperature variations recorded in the lower troposphere are generally reflected at higher altitudes also, and the overall temperature ‘pause’ since about 2002 is recorded at all altitudes, including the tropopause and into the stratosphere above. In the stratosphere, however, the temperature ‘pause’ had already commenced by around 1995; that is, 5–7 years before a similar temperature ‘pause’ began in the lower troposphere near the planet’s surface.The stratospheric temperature ‘pause’ has now lasted without interruption for about 24 years”.

  • Paul Homewood wrote herethat the Met Office’s Central England Temperature Record shows that temperatures have barely changed in 20 years and that there has been no increase in extremely hot days either:

“The summer of 2018 had just one day over 30 degrees, while 1976 had six. The Met Office’s data show that hot days are just not becoming more common.” And there seems to be little to worry about on bad weather front either. There has been a gentle decline in storminess, and in most of the UK, there has been no change in either average rainfall or rainfall extremes”.

  • A leading climatologist, Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has saidthat the computer simulations used to predict global warming are failing on a key measure of the climate today and cannot be trusted.

“They all have rapid warming above 30,000 feet in the tropics – it’s effectively a diagnostic signal of greenhouse warming. But in reality it’s just not happening. It’s warming up there, but at only about one third of the rate predicted by the models.”

  • Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin saysthe IPCC’s Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5), which makes a “costly and highly disruptive recommendation” that carbon emissions be reduced to zero by mid-century, lacks the scientific rigour to support such a proposal.

“There is much recent observational and scientific evidence that the IPCC report has failed to include and which supports a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme and unrealistic measures called for in the SR1.5 report”.

  • reviewof Met Office weather data found the UK climate was more stable than was being suggested.

The review, which examines official temperature, rainfall, drought and other weather data shows that although temperatures increased slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, there is no evidence that weather has become more extreme. And intriguingly, extreme heat is, if anything, slightly less common than in previous decades.In particular, heatwaves have not become more severe and nor have droughts. Data also suggest that recent warming has had little effect on the severity of flooding in the UK”.

  • Richard Lindzen, formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He has consistently drawn attention to the fact that AGW theory is a sham and a scam.

In a lecture in 2018, he ridiculed the core premises of AGW theory that the climate, a complex multifactor system, could be summarised in just one variable – the globally averaged temperature change – and that it was primarily controlled by the 1-2 per cent perturbation in the single variable of carbon dioxide. This, he said, is “an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking.”

“Turning to the issue of temperature extremes, is there any data to even support concern? As to these extremes, the data shows no trend and the IPCC agrees… At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming.

“This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use. Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem”.

So what’s really going on here? How come so many scientists subscribe to this falsification of science itself?

One clue lay in an article published in the Guardian in 2007 by Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and a guru of AGW orthodoxy. In seeking to rebut the argument that global warming theory was bunk, he openly acknowledged that the theory could not be supported by the “normal” rules of scientific inquiry. He wrote:

“The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow… Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science.But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity”.

As I wrote in The World Turned Upside Down: “It was a brazen admission that, in the name of science, scientific reason had been junked altogether to promote mere ideological conviction. In other words, science— the hard-wiring that underpins our age of reason — has short-circuited itself. It has mutated into a denial of rationality in order to change the very way in which people think. This is not about submitting theories or hypotheses or evidence for public debate. This is about using ‘science’ to stifle public debate and change the way people think and behave”.

Another theory was advanced by none other than the founder of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore, who subsequently saw the light. He suggested that after the failure of Soviet communism, neo-Marxists used green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than with the science of ecology.

That certainly corresponds with the real agenda of Extinction Rebellion, a leak from whose computer database revealed that its aims include “to build structure, community and test prototypes in preparation for the coming structural collapse of the regimes of western ‘democracies’ — now seen as inevitable due to stored-up crisis. Thus preparing a foundation to transform society and resist fascism/other extremes. This includes creating Rising from the Wreckage – a citizens’ assembly based on sortition [random selection]”.

Another scientist has heard other echoes. Professor Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, was appalled by the IPCC’s false claims about the increased risk from global warming of malaria, a disease on which Reiter is a world expert. And he noted the parallels between the global warming scam and “Lysenkoism” in the Soviet Union.

Trofim Lysenko was an agricultural scientist who claimed falsely that he could eradicate starvation by modifying seeds before cultivation and thus multiply grain production. He argued that conventional genetics was ‘fascist genetics’. Opposition to him was not tolerated. As a result, between 1934 and 1940 numerous geneticists were shot or exiled to Siberia and starved to death, including the Director of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1943.

Lysenko took his place and in 1948 genetics was labelled ‘bourgeois pseudoscience’. The ban on genetics was lifted in 1965 after tens of millions had starved to death because Lysenko’s agricultural polices had not produced enough food.

Reiter commented: “One of the few geneticists who survived the Stalin era wrote: ‘Lysenko showed how a forcibly instilled illusion, repeated over and over at meetings and in the media, takes on an existence of its own in people’s minds, despite all realities’. To me, we have fallen into this trap”.

The “climate emergency”, which we are told threatens the imminent collapse of civilisation and the extinction of humanity, is a dogma being enforced by a culturally totalitarian tyranny. Threatening the living standards of millions, permitting no challenge and wrecking the livelihoods and reputations of any who dares dissent, it has been created by a repudiation of science, humanity and reason: the very markers of modernity and the west. This is the real emergency. ”

 

 

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).

 

 

Goodbye Fairfax and NZME – no loss now…

Goodbye Fairfax and NZME – no loss at all…

https://kapitiindependentnews.net.nz/goodbye-nelson-mail/

Apparently, around the country, I gather, from reaction to my recent letter of farewell to the Nelson Mail, individuals who’ve also cancelled subscriptions to Stuff newspapers are being contacted by editorial staff asking them why.

They can’t be serious, can they?  It should be more than obvious to even the apparently severely challenged new breed of editorialists why the retreat from their second-rate publications is gathering speed.

My long attempt to persuade our local editor to stop suppressing letters which either she or the letters editor found displeasing recently came to an end. To know of fine, highly qualified correspondents continually denied the right to comment – particularly in relation to challenging activist propaganda and quite wrong assertions  – meant I could no longer support a paper so now essentially biased and basically thoroughly dumbed down.

Enter the Kapiti Independent News – with its increasingly enthusiastic readership. It presents a very good example of the way forward for the small, independent community newspapers now offering themselves as weeklies to step in and attract the interest of readers.

With so many now accessing the web for national and overseas news, local journals that will concentrate on two vital areas  – (the much-needed scrutinising of local council activities , and providing a forum for the letters to the editor – the two areas that most concern local people) –  will come into their own. If these can manage to remain independent, then there is every chance they will morph into a genuine, worthwhile replacement to their community than what were once far more worthwhile publications.

 

© 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.