Messages

[Does Jacinda Ardern Support Infanticide?]

Does Jacinda Ardern Support Infanticide?

Scoop (NZ) | 19 April 2020

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2004/S00171/does-jacinda-ardern-support-infanticide.htm

Excerpt: Why does the Prime Minister refuse to advise us why she voted in Parliament on March 10, to oppose appropriate medical care being given to a child born alive in a late term abortion? Simon O'Connor MP had moved an amendment to the Abortion Legislation Bill that would have required a doctor who had performed an abortion that resulted in a child being born alive, to have a duty to provide the child with appropriate care and treatment. This was the same duty of care that would be given to a born child.

[Is martial law next?]

Is martial law next?

A guest post by David Garrett | KiwiBlog (NZ) | 13 April 2020

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/04/guest_post_is_martial_law_next.html

Excerpt: Over the past few weeks – and particularly since "lockdown" began only two short weeks ago – we have seen police powers growing, seemingly by the day. It began  with what former Commissioner Bush called a "three step process": firstly educate, then warn, then if necessary arrest. Bush seemed to think the veiled threat of "a trip to our place" for those who didn't satisfy his men  somewhat amusing. It was made  clear that what was envisaged for persons taken on that "trip"  was a period of detention and then – if the person concerned was a good boy and agreed to whatever was asked of them  – release without charge. So far so only slightly sinister, although it would be fair to say that most people didn't really see it that way. It was only libertarians like me who had some disquiet from the beginning.

The next step was a exponential increase in police powers granted by the Medical Officer of Health, the apparently very capable Dr Ashley Bloomfield, by way of a Notice issued  under s.70 of the Health Act 1956. It is no exaggeration to say that the powers granted to the police under that Notice far exceed anything seen in this country since the waterfront strike/lockout in 1951; they are arguably greater than 70 years ago.

If any reader thinks that statement is hyperbole, I strongly urge them to read the said section 70  – just Google "New Zealand Legislation" and insert "Health Act" into the box. A Notice under s.70 allows persons acting under the direction of the Medical Officer of Health to: order that animals be destroyed; require persons to submit themselves for medical examination or testing at a prescribed place and time; require persons and places  to be disinfected; require persons to remain where they are until declared free of disease; and most draconian of all – and that is not a word I use lightly –  do anything listed under s.70 (2), which bears quoting in full:

s.70 (2) The medical officer of health, and any environmental health officer or other person authorised in that behalf by the medical officer of health, may at any time, with or without assistants, enter on any lands, buildings, or ships, and inspect the same and all things thereon or therein; and may do, with respect to any persons, places, lands, buildings, ships, animals, or things, whatever in the opinion of the medical officer of health is necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing provisions of this section

In other words, the police – or any other "authorized" person – may enter into your home and do "whatever in the opinion of the Medical Officer of Health is necessary or expedient...". These are extraordinary powers, seemingly without obvious limit. They are being interpreted to mean inter alia¸ that the  police may enter people's homes, demand to know who is there and why, and if the answers are not satisfactory to the police or other agent of the state exercising the power, to arrest that person.

While the right to petition the  courts on a writ of habeas corpus has not been suspended  – so far as I know – the courts themselves are not currently sitting regularly, and frankly I do not know quite how I would go about making an application to the High Court – especially over Easter –  if any client of mine was arrested and detained without charge for an indefinite period. But, as the infomercials say wait, there's more.

Today Stuff reveals that the police have co-opted Aviation Security Officers – those guys whose  job it is to watch the screen as your carry on is scanned – to "assist" the police in the exercise of their powers. Think about that for a moment – a person with no training to speak of, and certainly no training regarding , or even  awareness of,  citizens' rights under the law – except at the airport –  is now potentially empowered to enter your home and demand to know why your brother or your cousin or your girlfriend  is there, and if they don't like the answer, have you arrested by a policeman who is just a cell phone call away.

What are the limits of the powers now granted to these former scanner operators? Who knows? For me, these people seem to be  uncomfortably close to "Massey's Cossacks" – farmers who were made "special constables" in 1913, and as with their modern day counterparts at the airport,  given the power to "assist the police" or in actuality, back in 1913, to   beat up strikers on the wharves.

Back in 1951, the government of the day declared that the country was "at war" with militant waterside workers who were demanding higher pay. No disease was involved, or at least no physical one.  Emergency regulations imposed rigid censorship, gave police sweeping powers of arrest, and made it an offence to assist strikers – even giving food to their children was illegal. However, as  Rodney Hide has noted, even in 1951 the entire country was not under home detention, and nor were people prevented from going to their family bach.

What is next? Police Minister Nash has announced that "the defence force remains on standby" which means that martial law must be at least within the contemplation of some. Do we really want a cabinet containing Nash and Andrew Little to decide whether it's time to call in the army "to assist"?

All of the above surely begs the question "Is the cure worse than the disease?" I would argue that that may well be the case. Today two more deaths were announced, one of them a 94 year old man, and another person in their 80's. All four deceased were in their 70's or older. All four  certainly died with, if not of, Covid-19. I mean no disrespect to the families of the deceased, nor  do I wish to sound uncaring,  when  noting that at 94, every day one wakes up in the morning  is surely  a bonus. The common cold, let alone "ordinary" flu leading to pneumonia  must carry off hundreds if not thousands of elderly people every winter.

I should make clear that I am not in the camp of those who see  this disease as "just the flu" in order to minimise it,  although it is worth noting that  the writer of the seminal work on the 1918 pandemic  made clear that it also was  "just the flu" and not a new and terrible form of TB, or worse, a return of the black plague. This is clearly a very nasty illness no-one – particularly the elderly  or the otherwise vulnerable – would wish to catch.

But let us recall that community transmission has remained at about 2% while most cases continue to be closely linked to overseas travel. In other words the chances of anyone getting it from a trip to the supermarket – with or without the largely useless facemask – are tiny at best.  At long last, full quarantine measures are being imposed at the border; in my view they should have been put in place two weeks ago at least, given the clear pattern of transmission from the very beginning.

But surely we must retain some perspective. For the fourth day running more people have recovered than there have been new cases. There have been a total of four deaths, all of elderly people who, it must be said, could have been carried off by anything, or simply died in their sleep. Given everything we now    know, is this a time for extending  the state's draconian powers to scanner monitors from the airport? Not in my book it isn't. History teaches that when emergency powers "for the duration" are put in place, the duration has a way of extending way beyond when most people would think them necessary.

[New Zealand: State Control]

New Zealand: State Control

Dr Muriel Newman | NZ Centre for Political Research | 29 September 2019

https://www.nzcpr.com/state-control/

The Government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is shaping up to be one of the most controlling in New Zealand's history.

Like all socialist regimes that aim to impose the will of a few onto the many, they will eventually fail because most people by their very nature do not want to be controlled. Socialists refuse to understand that simple truth of the human spirit.

The attraction of socialism is that it sounds so good, especially to those who feel they would benefit from the taxing of others.

Winston Churchill described it well when he said, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy". While he then went on to say, "Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery", he was not quite right. There are some who don't have to share in the misery of socialism – namely the ruling elite.

The reality is that throughout history, socialism – which can be characterised as excessive government control – has led to widespread hardship and oppression. But rather than being persuaded by past failure that socialism doesn't work, the socialists' response is to increase Government control.

The relentless expansion of the State is most certainly Jacinda Ardern's agenda.

{SNIP}

Then there are the attacks on civil liberties, including yet more firearms regulations, and the PM's call for restrictions on the freedom of expression.

These changes arose in response to the Christchurch tragedy. But instead of waiting until the Royal Commission of Inquiry reports back, to determine exactly what law changes are needed, public outrage and grief created an opportunity for Labour to impose heavy-handed restrictions that, under normal circumstances, would have been rejected by freedom loving Kiwis.

In her haste to be seen to be legislating faster than Australia after their Port Arthur massacre, Jacinda Ardern trampled on democracy and rushed into law blanket bans on guns and parts, undermining the long-established rights of Kiwi firearm owners to enjoy their sport.

Now the next phase of Labour's attack on gun owners, the Arms Amendment Bill, is being fast-tracked through Parliament, with submissions due on October 23rd – see HERE for details.

The main purpose of the new law is to introduce a firearms register. In addition, it tightens gun licensing requirements by reducing the licensed period from 10 years to 5 years, imposes new regulations and costs on shooting clubs, establishes a new firearms advisory bureaucracy, requires doctors to share medical concerns with Police, and it substantially increases fees and penalties.

Through more controls and restrictions, especially the registration of firearms, Labour is further punishing law-abiding New Zealand gun owners, since criminals and extremists who are responsible for most of the country's gun crimes are highly unlikely to register their firearms! That was certainly the case in Australia, where 90 percent of firearms used in criminal offences are unregistered.

The gun registration scheme proposed in the Bill is likely to fail. Registration was first introduced in New Zealand in the 1920s but was eventually revoked through the 1983 Arms Act because it was inaccurate and too costly to maintain.

The new approach that was introduced was based on the common sense concept that it is the user, not the weapon, that poses a danger to society. The focus therefore changed to gun owners to ensure they were "fit and proper" and that their firearms were securely stored.

Based on our own experience, the firearm registration scheme being proposed by Labour, will not only become an expensive bureaucratic behemoth costing taxpayers far more than our politicians care to admit, but it will not  prevent future tragedies. The only gain will be political – it will be regarded as a 'win' by those Labour supporters who would like to see all guns in New Zealand banned.

The Police Minister Stuart Nash has estimated the cost of firearms registration will be up to $53 million over 10 years. But Canada's experience should provide a warning.

When Canada's gun registry was introduced in 1995, it was estimated to cost C$2 million. But the price blew out exponentially – to C$3 billion! The government finally abandoned trying to register shotguns and rifles and now just tracks restricted weapons including handguns and semi-automatics.

The problem was that the Canadian Government introduced gun registration in the wake of a mass shooting in Montreal. But firearm registration was not the first legislative crackdown on legal gun ownership – it was the second.

As a result, law abiding Canadian gun owners felt they were being unfairly targeted by their Government. Many protested by refusing to register their firearms. Some actively obstructed the process, by registering other items like soldering guns instead!

There were expensive court battles, and during its entire 17 year existence, Canada's gun register was said to have recorded no more than a third of the guns otherwise legally owned in the country.

The point was made that registering guns is not like registering cars and boats, which are used on public roads and can be monitored by the police. Instead, most guns are privately owned and used, making enforcement difficult and expensive.

Through her ill-advised law changes just after the shooting, Jacinda Ardern has already alienated gun owners – repeating Canada's mistakes. As a result, the outcome of gun registration in this country is almost certain to be an expensive disaster.

Not content with gun control in the aftermath of Christchurch, our Prime Minister also set her sights on restricting the freedom of expression.

In an unprecedented move, the Chief Censor was called upon to ban both the gunman's video of the shooting and his manifesto. By classifying them as objectionable, anyone knowingly possessing or sharing them could be fined up to $10,000 or be sentenced to a prison term of up to 14 years.

Radio New Zealand reported that by August there had been 35 charges relating to possession of the video, leading to 14 prosecutions, 10 referrals to the Youth Court, one written warning and eight verbal warnings. One man is known to have been sentenced to two years in jail.

Hundreds of people are also on a Police 'watchlist' for the crime of free expression. The Police turn up at homes asking about opinions on a range of matters including immigration, colonisation, and politics. One person reported being accused by the Police of calling the Prime Minister "a socialist". It is very troubling indeed when Police come knocking because someone is accusing the PM – a former president of the International Union of Socialist Youth – of being a socialist!

Under Labour, our free society is no longer free. But it's going to get worse.

Not satisfied with just banning the video of the Mosque shooting in New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern wanted it prohibited world-wide. She began working with the French President Emmanuel Macron on the "Christchurch Call", an initiative to suppress terrorist content on the Internet.

Strong concerns were expressed that this could lead to the wholesale censorship of the Internet. Indeed, that is what now seems to be occurring.

This week's NZCPR Guest Commentator Dr Bronwyn Howell, a programme director at Victoria University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has been closely following these developments and is now concerned that the Christchurch Call is leading to widespread social engineering:

"Facebook's September 17 announcement that it has updated its definition of dangerous individuals and organizations, and would be extending its initiative to use algorithms to redirect individuals using terms associated with searches for white supremacy to resources focused on helping people leave behind hate groups to include Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand, constitutes a significant development.

"Since March, US search queries on Facebook using terms algorithmically determined to be associated with white supremacy have been redirected to Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and outreach.

"While there may be considerable popular support for Facebook's use of algorithms in this manner, there are equally as many questions raised about the legitimacy of attempts to use platforms to 'socially re-engineer' or 'reprogram' individuals."

Dr Howell asks where is the mandate to override an individual's internet request, to deliver a pre-selected search result. She believes such an intervention would normally only be possible following a transparent and accountable process agreed by the community of users collectively.

However, the reality is that Jacinda Ardern's Christchurch Call appears to have encouraged Facebook and other Internet players into a greater use of censorship. It is highly likely they are responding to political pressure that if they do not do so voluntarily, a regulatory regime will be imposed on them.

The changes already made are significant. Try posting information on Facebook denying man-made global warming and you are likely to receive a notice telling you it has been categorised as "fake news" by their "fact checkers" and banned. You may also be told that if you persist in posting such content then your page or group will be downgraded so it does not feature in search rankings.

That Facebook's 'fact checkers' claim the earth is now warmer than during the Medieval and Roman warm periods, raises concerns that they are conforming to crowd hysteria, and have become puppets of political control rather than the bastions of free expression and the truth.

It's the same story with material supporting the role of colonisation. A meme for example, stating that poor social statistics for Maori were caused by such things as poor parenting, substance abuse, violence, and welfare dependency, rather than colonisation, was labelled as hate speech by Facebook and banned.

Whether such developments are the direct result of Jacinda Ardern's closed-door talks with social media organisations is impossible to tell, but they certainly raise concerns that this new state of censorship is a taste of what's to come in New Zealand if Labour delivers on their promise to introduce hate speech laws.

So while the mainstream media discourse is occupied with daily news, the bigger and more important story is the theft of personal freedoms as New Zealand heads down a path to state control.

No democracy can survive without free speech and open public discourse. The suppression of controversial ideas – whether genuinely offensive or just contrary to the views of the liberal elites – is a worrying step toward tyranny.

About the Author:

Dr Muriel Newman established the New Zealand Centre for Political Research as a public policy think tank in 2005 after nine years as a Member of Parliament. A former Chamber of Commerce President, her background is in business and education.

https://youtu.be/9lnPqbgEU7o

http://www.volkstaat.net/index.php?view=article&catid=47%3Apersonalities&id=122

Excerpt: Piet Rudolph (Petrus Johannes Rudolph) called "Skiet" is a Boer nationalist. An impetuous man, brave and generous, who has dedicated his life to the Boer nation. Although he has been committed in various political organizations, he has always been a genuine and disinterested fighter, motivated by love for his people.

Piet Rudolph was born in South Africa the 20th June 1937, in the small village of Vischkuil in the district of Springs, in the Transvaal.

He was City Councillor in Pretoria for the Herstigte Nasionale Party (HNP, in English: Reconstituted National Party) and member of Konserwatiewe Party (KP, in English: Conservative Party). Was later a prominent member of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB, in English: Afrikaner Resistance Movement); deputy leader of Boerestaat Party (BSP, in English: Party of the Boer State); a founder and the leader of the Orde Boerevolk (in English: Order of the Boer Nation).

"To survive no price is too high", this phrase stood out on a banner held up by Piet Rudolph in 1979, while waiting outside a court Terre'Blanche and other AWB men tried for mistreating a professor who mocked, and asked to destroy the sacred traditions of the Boer nation. A phrase on a banner, and for him: a way of life.