Jacinda – too self-willed for a democracy
Arguably, Jacinda Ardern’s destructive and racist politics are unhealthy for New Zealand.
When we have the over-authoritarian leader of any political party failing to realise that they are simply temporarily chairing a group of loosely-united individuals — not there to rule the country — democracy flies out the window.
Are you supporting those New Zealanders fighting now to reclaim our country? If you can help, even a little, please do!
SHARE or LIKE us on https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf
We very much need donations, too, to help get our message of hope even further.
See the DONATIONS page www.100days.co.nz
© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.
The ridiculous attack on reason
by Amy Brooke
News Weekly, May 16, 2020
I remember once coming across a saying that the dead have as much power to influence us as the living, through what they have written. Yet today educationists ignore so much of what our greatest writers and thinkers had to say, with most ”educational” activity no more than a complicated way of inflicting on children little of lasting value.
Plato, however, reminded us: “If a man neglects his education he walks lame for the rest of his life.” Yet the once widely acknowledged fact that teaching each generation how to use their minds well is at least as important as sporting activities, has long been displaced by curriculum subjects incorporating radicalised propaganda. Today we can add our Ministry of Education’s insertion of global warming groupthink into our schools curriculum.
I recall years ago one of my sons remarking that his secondary school was hosting a government-sponsored representative to make sure all students embraced the “correct” thinking in relation to the politically hijacked Treaty of Waitangi. The latter’s simple, straightforward provisions have long been distorted by activists for political advantage.
What was particularly striking was the local newspaper’s picture of this young woman addressing some senior students, and frankly admitting she was there to correct any “wrong opinions” their parents might be passing on to their children.
My son could always hold his own in debate, and I reminded him how important it always is to examine thoroughly both sides of any issue, weigh it up as objectively as possible and then defend his own thinking. After all, I pointed out in my naivety, he would have been taught at school, too, that the most important thing is to follow one’s own conscience with regard to what one thinks is right.
Now, incredibly, this is the last thing children are taught. Rather, that for the sake of social harmony, one should endorse groupthink.
Recently, reflecting on the irrational thinking now given ritual obeisance – with so many conforming to a herd mentality embracing the delusional – I was reminded of Aristotle’s “man is an imitative animal”. The advertising industry knows this well. And it goes a long way to explaining the conviction many individuals now have that the fact they were born biologically male or female is irrelevant. They seem convinced that by feeling differently they really become different. By such logic, if I feel I am a child again, not an adult, then I am. Or an elephant, if the feeling takes me.
And we are now being asked to endorse, with the capitulation of the hierarchies, allowing males claiming to be females to participate in women’s sports, to use women’s private facilities, toilets, changing rooms — to be lodged in women’s prisons where incidents of rape unsurprisingly result. But why this acceptance of groupthink – of insisting that self-delusion is acceptable?
One well-respected English writer, using the pseudonym of Alpha of the Plough, maintained: “There is a large part of the public, possibly the majority … born to be fooled, which will believe anything because it hasn’t the faculty of judging anything but the size of the crowd, and will always follow the ass with the longest ears.”
DISCOURAGING THE ‘FOOL’
One of the books I most treasure is Unended Quest, by Austrian-born philosopher Karl Popper, who lectured for a time in New Zealand at the University of Canterbury, where my father sat in on his lectures. Popper gave this autographed copy to Dr Margaret Dalziel, in 1982.
Before she became Emeritus Professor, I had Margaret as a tutor at the University of Otago. She passed the book along to me. In it the author of The Open Society and its Enemies discusses an issue long puzzling me: the nature of intelligence.
In my time working as an independent consultant to a think tank in Wellington, particularly in relation to education and treaty issues, I became increasingly struck by the fact that many highly regarded individuals, having achieved outstanding marks in scholarship and other national examinations, were puzzlingly rigid in their thinking. I came to realise that very “clever” individuals, some holding positions in Treasury, others with leadership roles in political parties, were by no means deeply intelligent. They, too, took their cue from the intellectual fashions of the day.
Popper clarifies this, distinguishing between the dogmatic and the critical methods of thinking. He writes that the dogmatic way of thinking comes first, due to an inherent need for regularities, preceded by learning – first in the sense of discovery, then by imitation and by practising.
He postulates, however, that it is the critical thinking of a minority of individuals, examining and attacking presuppositions, that is particularly valuable. He argued that what characterises their creative thinking, apart from the intensity of interest in a problem, is a much more rare ability to break through the limits of the range of dogmatic thinking.
Given the sheer irrationality with which we are now faced at every level, and the aggressive attack by the now dominant left, perhaps it is time to reflect on George Bernard Shaw’s assertion that the future depends upon those whose laughter discourages the fool — a word that we understandably tend to avoid — rather than encourages him. Today we can certainly add her!
In fact, there is an important battle now under way. So is “risus est bellum” (“laughter is war”) a reality we are overdue to embrace?
Amy Brooke is an award-winning New Zealand children’s author, commentator and critic.
Subscribe to read more articles in this issue.
Amy Brooke convened The 100 Days – www.100days.co.nz with the support of a core group of colleagues from the annual Summer Sounds Symposium. See her book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through her BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.
News Weekly, May 2, 2020
NIGHT FLIGHT – REMEMBERING ANZAC DAY
Lord, I’m not yet twenty,
My brother only twenty-three;
if one of us must die tonight
let it not be he!
Yet there the crescent moon
rising gold above the land
cradles the ghost of another;
one reborn, one dying
in the arms of a brother,
a sign of things to be …?
He led me by the hand
once when lost and small. I understand
the call for sons, while grieving mothers
listen to our planes climb high,
and fathers pace – and loving others;
my girl who kissed me, smiling still.
I promised to come back.
Some day I will.
But not tonight. The woods below
are where my pup and I grew up. We owe
that old dog, whining in his sleep
our childhood days. Three pairs of eyes
on silver moving in the stream …
What does he dream?
Do owls still keep
the twilight watch below?
I see our fields are white with snow …
but dark shadows now streak by.
Keep them both safe, Lord!
Let them go free!
If one must go, take me.
ANZAC DAY – IN THE TRENCHES
Perhaps in the end
they didn’t mind dying so much;
but wouldn’t you, just twenty-two
hearing the message the close guns send?
You, worn out, sleeping only fitfully,
a trench bed of muddy clay and water,
soaked to the skin, propped up on sandbags –
pyjamas, man? You’ve worn the same clothes
for weeks, filthy, smelling, depressed
by dysentery, a fortnight’s rain on and off
and on…thinking before dawn of home …
longing– in this surrealistic world
of dirt and damp and hunger, the horror
of good mates hanging over barbed wire
a head joined only to a helmet …
– to see them all once more, and say
the things you wished you’d said before!
You say them now, or scribble them down,
think their world might yet be saved
if enough tough men, like you are trying
hard to be, lie awake at night
and think of them, and fight, and kill
others trapped like you – to keep them free.
You wanted once so much to live!
But now you say – For them – what’s meant to be …
for them and for theirs – things undone – forgive?
I fought for things enduring. Oh, remember me!
Our staggeringly cruel treatment of the ill and dying – why are we allowing this?
Very few New Zealanders will be anything like comfortable with Jacinda Ardern’s government policy, which, while ostentatiously promoting well-being and kindness, denies the lonely and dying elderly in our rest homes and hospitals from being with those they have spent their lives cherishing.
Mothers and fathers not able to say goodbye to their children! Children not able to be with and comfort their parents… husbands and wives to assure each other of that love they have given through thick and thin…to tell the most important things of all…just to hold a hand and be there.
It feels dreadfully morally wrong that we are conniving at agreeing with our politicians that our survival as a society necessitates our turning our backs on those who have meant so much to us – even given their lives for us – a tragedy of repudiation of the most vulnerable at the time – when they may most of all need us with them.
Some would argue that to be able to see and give comfort at such an important time is one of the most important things we can do in our lives – and would argue that we will still eventually defeat this coronavirus – but that the price we pay by being kept away from those who have such a great need of this – those they love being with them – is one that is simply too high.
I would agree. And I would ask those of you who feel the same to write to the Prime Minister -it’s certainly easy enough to email any MP…and the leader of the Opposition and/or or your own MP. All it requires is a first name, a full stop, then @parliament. govt nz – For example : – Winston.Peters@parliament. govt.nz …and so on.
One very useful thing to remember is that in normal times, most MPs don’t bother to read their emails. Their staff do it for them. And apparently sme staff are quite good at making sure that emails they personally might not like don’t get sent on to the ministers.
But now, with secretaries apparently not being on duty in Parliament, MPs wanting to take the measure of the country are answering their own emails – as I have just discovered from one high-ranking politician writing back directly.
And from this fine reminder from Rabbi Dr Shai Held, in the Atlantic March 12, 2020, well titled The staggering heartless cruelty towards the elderly comes the overdue reminder that a global pandemic doesn’t give us cause to treat the aged callously.
Isn’t it time to protest about the fact that we are doing just this in New Zealand? Why on earth are we!
Please help by joining our own protest. And read on.
Please note that we do not need even to stress that “from a religious perspective” there are important things to teach our children… Forf rom any perspective of decency, and our duty of care for the most vulnerable is always there.
The staggering, heartless cruelty toward the elderly
A global pandemic doesn’t give us cause to treat the aged callously.
by Rabbi Dr Shai Held
The Atlantic, March 12, 2020.
“Extract (emphasis added)
From a religious perspective, if there is one thing we ought to teach our children, it is that our worth as human beings does not depend on or derive from what we do or accomplish or produce; we are, each of us, infinitely valuable just because we are created in the image of God. We mattered before we were old enough to be economically productive, and we will go on mattering even after we cease to be economically productive.
Varied ethical and religious traditions find their own ways to affirm an elemental truth of human life: The elderly deserve our respect and, when necessary, our protection. The mark of a decent society is that it resists the temptation to spurn the defenseless. It is almost a truism that the moral fabric of a society is best measured by how it treats the vulnerable in its midst — and yet it is a lesson we never seem to tire of forgetting. “You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old,” the Bible says — look out for them and, in the process, become more human yourself.”
© 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.
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
*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”.
- A 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. ”
Our disastrous political hierarchies – the shocking takeover of education
For the moment, let’s pass over the fact that increasingly New Zealanders are fed up with the fact that English, the language of the majority of the country, our most important language nationally and internationally, is now being relegated to a supposedly inferior position. A newly fabricated language, te reo, made up of thousands of newly-minted words, a demonstrably reinvented and inauthentic “Maori language”, is being promoted as more important – as with this sign over “ Pike River Mine Recovery Agency” .
None of these words are genuine Maori, and although any language gradually takes up and assimilates new words, for academics to contrive to blatantly make up words which are supposedly genuine Maori, and to then prioritise them over English, is simply not acceptable. Without consultation with New Zealanders, even our National Anthem is now sung first in Maori – over the objections of many. No prizes for guessing where all these ongoing attempts to advance the agenda of a minor, but highly vocal, ego-driven, basically obsessive group come from…
The Australians were much smarter. Their activists’ attempts to replace their own National Anthem with an Aboriginal version received the response our government should have given to those who foisted off on this country the inauthentic Maori vision of Thomas Bracken’s 1876 poem known as “ God defend New Zealand.”
The move to replace Australia’s National Anthem, “Advance Australia Fair” by an invented aboriginal version met the official response which should have also been adopted here. “It would not be appropriate for alternative versions of “Advance Australia Fair” to be presented as the Australian national anthem, which should be performed as proclaimed. However, there may be occasions when your version of “Advance Australia Fair” could be performed as a patriotic song.
“The Government would need to be convinced of a sufficient groundswell of support in the wider community to warrant changing the anthem.”
Our own government managed to dispense with any ground-swelling of support from the wider community, and simply acted without consulting New Zealanders – as it does with most of the legislation it affects upon the country. And with the wonderfully convenient excuse of “cultural sensitivity”, those very few, perennially dissatisfied part-Maori activists – ignored by the majority of New Zealanders, including most of Maori descent – our political parties folded up, as usual, to oblige those making the most noise. However, cultural sensitivity works two ways, and New Zealanders have become increasingly sceptical of the now hundreds of millions of dollars continually handed over to the causes of these same activists. In fact, while accumulatively billions of dollars over recent decades have been transferred to those of even a highly attenuated Maori genetic inheritance, we should remember that these handouts – including for the demands to keep the Maori language alive (which it now isn’t …not the authentic language recorded by the early missionaries ) should far more appropriately be directed to other areas of much greater priority. For example, the health budgets…the desperately cash-strapped hospitals… the grossly under-funded Pharmac – whose markedly low annual grant and inability to carry the cost of procedures now commonplace even Australia, and saving lines overseas, has become almost scandalous.
Such decisions of course, are always made by our politicised hierarchies… similar to those who handled the tragedies of White Island, Cave Creek, and the Pike River mine, But here, as worldwide, we can view the lessons of Brexit, the central message of which is that so-called ordinary, that is normal people…the man whose day revolves around a job in trade or in the professions …the woman homemaker…or the one struggling to hold down a job and at the same time do justice to her children… have had enough of overbearing governments.
The examples of what happened on White Island, at Cave Creek, at Pike River show the extent to which our hierarchies are no longer capable of acting in the interests of all New Zealanders – any more than a shockingly dumbed-down education system churning out so many young New Zealanders who are basically sub-literate , and remarkably ignorant in areas important for an educated population… and deprived of any knowledge of the important lessons of history… world history…let alone our own forefathers’ history and the sacrifices they made to safeguard our futures – our actual democracy.
Importantly, a new release by the Taxpayer’s Union illustrates, as this organisation rightly claims the newest example of the complete capture of education bureaucracy by the far Left, showing how a climate change addition to the curriculum amounts to taxpayer-funded propaganda. As its spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says, “ The new taxpayer funded curriculum promotes the campaigns of Greta Thunberg, School Strike for Climate and even Greenpeace. Students are encouraged to reduce their feelings of climate guilt by participating in this kind of political activism.”
How very scandalous – and it’s about time parents need to vigorously object to such blatant brainwashing. A parents’ strike – removing their children from schools prepared to implement such propaganda would be a good start. Time to use activists’ own tactics against them?
The has nothing whatever to do with genuine debate, the presentation and analysis of both sides of the current issue. It has nothing whatever to do with the truth of this issue. On the contrary, it has everything to do with sheer indoctrination.
Moreover, the more obvious it becomes that all the “climate change emergency” theories warning of more global warming to come have not only been greatly exaggerated, but are now acknowledged to be quite wrong – the more frantic and noisy the efforts of climate change cultists to have their erroneous conclusions adopted worldwide…in spite of all the scientific-backed evidence to the contrary.
However, the well-validated scepticism of the general public is also increasing. And down here on the South Island, log fires are being lit, not only in Invercargill but up as far as Nelson, to cope with the cooling nights of what should be Summer… So much for global warming.
© 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.
Don’t miss! “False information on melting glaciers will be removed ‘as budgets permit’. “
Climate change fanatics should have (but predictably won’t) learned a hard lesson by now. As one correspondent puts it: Hmmm… Such commendably urgent truth-seeking in Glacier National Park…
Glacier National Park Set to Remove All ‘Glaciers Will Be Gone By 2020’ Signage
All glaciers were supposed to have melted before January 1 of this year.
by Tom Pappert
As we are already 8 days into 2020 with no sign of the glaciers disappearing, Montana’s Glacier National Park is set to remove the signage stating that “glaciers will be gone by 2020.”
In the early 2000s, scientists warned that all glaciers will have melted by the year 2020, causing a dramatic rise in sea level that would have devastating results for coastal cities and islands.
However, as we enter the third decade of the 21st century, the glaciers are still present, and some have grown in size during recent years, according to NASA.
According to local media, the incorrect prediction from scientists are resulting in the removal of all signs stating that the glaciers will be gone by this year.
KPAX reports that Glacier National Parks spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen explained that “the latest research shows shrinking, but in ways much more complex than what was predicted.”
As a result, “the park must update all signs around the park stating all glaciers will be melted by 2020.”
Some of the signage was already removed in 2019, as the lack of melting became apparent.
“The sign at St. Mary’s Visitor Center was removed in May of 2019 and other signs will be removed around the park as budgets permit,” according to KPAX.
“Kurzmen says Glacier National Park will work with the US Geological Survey to monitor the glaciers and update the remainder of the signs as necessary.”
In 2017, a YouTube video was posted by a visitor of Glacier National Park, expressing incredulity that the glaciers would be melted only three years from the time the video was posted.
This is not the first prediction made by climate scientists about the year 2020 to be proven incorrect.
National File recently reported that the President George W. Bush’s Pentagon claimed that Europe would be either submerged in water or experiencing a Siberian climate by the year 2020.
Nearly 16 years ago, The Guardian released an article [below] that warned of intelligence given to then-President George W. Bush concerning the fate of the planet by 2020 due to the climate change crisis:
“A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.”
Not only was climate changed billed as impending, but even went so far to suggest that this threat would destabilize beyond the degree of a planned terrorist attack.
“The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.”
National File will continue to track previous climate change predictions as we move further into 2020.
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
- Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America’s public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President’s position on the issue as indefensible.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK’s leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon’s internal fears should prove the ‘tipping point’ in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office – and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism – said: ‘If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.’
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson.
‘You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. ‘This is depressing stuff,’ he said. ‘It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.’
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said.
‘The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.’
So dramatic are the report’s scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush’s stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.
The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry’s cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed ‘Yoda’ by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence’s push on ballistic-missile defence.
Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. ‘It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.’
Symons said the Bush administration’s close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. ‘This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,’ he added.”
Is Jacinda Ardern basically worryingly ignorant?
“ I was forced to wear a hijab. It wasn’t liberating.”
“Why World Hijab Day is an insult to girls like me”.
If New Zealanders have a right to expect their Prime Ministers to have a realistic grasp of world affairs, shouldn’t Miss Ardern have known a lot better than to hastily don a hijab, no matter how well intentioned – upsetting so many brave women who have fought so long against this symbol of male oppression in the Middle East?
Shouldn’t she have known this – and a lot else? Is it time to ask whether or not our PM lacks good judgment?
This is the PM who also condescended to the Australians about their very important policy of discouraging invasions by boat people jumping the queue – and who reportedly suddenly, no doubt inadvertently, made New Zealand suddenly an attractive choice for those unscrupulous profiteers preying on those abandoning their own countries. This is the same Jacinda who doubted that New Zealand has Russian spies in this country –( which would certainly make a change…) – and who apparently doesn’t like what she is hearing, reported from Australia, that China’s spy agency was behind the burglary of Dr Anne-Marie Brady’s home and university office – and a tampering with her car. See below***
16 February 2019
“It was World Hijab Day earlier this month. You probably missed it, but you can imagine the idea: ‘global citizens’ of all faiths and backgrounds were asked to cover their heads for a day ‘in solidarity with Muslim women worldwide’. It is done in ‘recognition of millions of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab and live a life of modesty’.
“Wearing a hijab is not such an abstract cause for me: I used to wear one a few years ago when I was at school in Iran. And in the spirit of solidarity, I’d like to tell you a bit more about the world I left behind when I moved to Britain in 2011 when I was nine years old.
” I was six when I was first made to wear the hijab to school. When I was eight, I was forced to wear the hijab while walking around Arak, my hometown in north–western Iran. I did so in fear of the ‘modesty’ police, who patrolled the streets looking for anyone who dared to remove their hijab.
” For one year we had a nice teacher who on rare occasions allowed us to take our hijabs off in class, provided the door was closed, the windows shut and the blinds completely pulled. Why? There was a male janitor who used to sweep the playground, and Allah forbade that he should lay his eyes on an underage girl’s hair. She could go to hell for that.
” My teachers deemed it appropriate to shove their hands into my hijab and push my hair back to prevent a single strand of hair being on show. The intrusion didn’t stop there. Each week, we had physical checks of our hair and nails — and also, in case we were tempted to try jewellery, our ears, chests and wrists. Wearing large hairclips wasn’t allowed, despite the fact that they were hidden by our hijabs. To this day I haven’t figured out why a flower-shaped clip is provocative. Underneath the hijab, our hair had to be either short or in a firm ponytail, so that the style of hair didn’t accentuate certain areas of the fabric.
“Schoolteachers weren’t the only ones keeping a close eye on us. Iran’s modesty police were a constant and stressful presence in our lives. I’d learned, out of habit, to avoid them as much as possible, though that certainly became difficult when they didn’t want to avoid you. They used to park tactically in the road where the hair and makeup salons were ready to arrest anyone who they deemed ‘immodest’. They even arrested someone I know who was at the airport about to board a flight to Australia, because her manteau (a loose jacket that is mandatory in Iran for modesty reasons) was ‘too short’. And no, this wasn’t another era: it was just a few years ago.
” I was taught that the hijab was intended to keep a girl pure and away from the eyes of men. This is why the hijab represents a form of victim-blaming. The premise is that men are expected to act like predators, and that girls should feel they are to blame should anything untoward happen.
” If the janitor were to think impure thoughts about one of the girls in my class, that would have been her fault. If a married man thinks about a woman inappropriately, it is deemed to be her fault. Then again, he could always take her as his second wife (a practice still common in Iran).
” Some argue that the hijab is liberating for women. Having come from the inside, I can tell you: the hijab, and the kind of rule I lived under, isn’t about feminism. It isn’t an empowering rejection of being judged by your appearance. It is a form of submission: the chaining up of women to the mullahs who promulgate this nonsense. For women who have been forced to wear a hijab, World Hijab Day is an insult. It’s an open attempt to portray oppressors as victims, and to overlook the feelings of women who have been taught to believe throughout their lives that they are second-class beings.
“I have found my life in Britain to be a liberation, but it staggers me to see so much nonsense spoken about the hijab and the regime I escaped. There are brave women imprisoned in Iran for various infractions of the modesty code; there are women who have been treated appallingly for wearing a hijab that is too loose or transparent. More recently, there have been women punished for not wearing a hijab. And yet the hijab is now celebrated in the West. ‘It’s OK to be modest,’ say the hijab’s apologists. Well of course, but there is nothing modest about brushing over the suffering of the women and girls of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
“I have tended to keep quiet about the fact that I used to wear a hijab. I was so wounded by the horrors of Islam that I wanted to pretend it never existed. But in Britain I realise I now have a voice, and that I am not a second-class citizen who should be scared of talking out of turn. I have also realised that I don’t deserve to be scolded by religious women for ditching the hijab. In Britain, it is acceptable to be a free woman. You don’t have to obey the restrictive demands of your father, husband or government.
” I have changed a lot since I was six. I’m now 16, and while I can’t say I have better hair, I have something even better: freedom. I now try to see World Hijab Day as a day to celebrate being free of the hijab. Women like me who have escaped the veil can use this day to rejoice in our newfound liberty.”
As reader comments:” True solidarity would see all Western, non-Muslim women never wearing a hijab, in moral support of the Muslim women who are forced to cover their hair – until Muslim women have complete freedom. Until then, it is unavoidably a symbol of theocratic male oppression.”
Shouldn’t our PM have known this – and a lot else…?
This is the PM who also condescended to the Australians about their very important policy of discouraging invasions by the boat people jumping the queue – and who reportedly suddenly, no doubt inadvertently, made New Zealand an attractive choice for those unscrupulous profiteers, preying on those abandoning their own countries. This is the same Jacinda who doubted that New Zealand has Russian spies in this country –( which would certainly make a change…) and who apparently doesn’t like what she is hearing, reported from Australia, that China’s spy agency was behind the burglary of Dr Anne-Marie Brady’s home and university office – and the dangerous tampering with her car.
What this apparently worryingly under-informed Prime Minister needs to take on board is that , as the temporary leader of a Labour Party which nearly two thirds of the country rejected in the last election – hence the cobbled- up coalition – she is basically simply the chairman of her party… and that her illogical views on diversity ( i.e. division, divisiveness?) which took shape under the failed doctrine of multiculturalism overseas – needs to be rethought – or at the very least not imposed upon the country.
With good reason it has been said that country divided against itself cannot stand.
It would be more than foolish to forget that that assimilation – the acceptance of all New Zealanders dedicated to the democratic cohesion of the country – is what we should be asking for from those who live here or wish to make this country their home.
Equal rights for all – regardless of, colour, gender, race or creed has always been the flag of democracy.
Separatism – where rifts begin to develop because individual ethnic groups or fundamentalist religions begin to demand preference – or special acknowledgement – cannot coexist with a stable democracy.
On the contrary, a country survives peacefully when all individuals work with a common purpose. And a common understanding of how easily democratic freedoms can be lost needs to be constantly kept in mind.
In the end, everything depends upon the commitment of individuals to remember how so many of our forebears fought for this – many giving up their lives to do so. Should we be letting them down?
©Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days. www.100days.co.nz
See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.
— Amy Brooke Visit my homepage and children’s literature website: www.amybrooke.co.nz
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.”
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. “
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.
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.
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.”
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!
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”.
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).