HIPKINS, COVID RESPONSE, NZ COURTS: 'ABJECT FAILURE'

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. 

 Take a very good look at the publicity shot above, advertising New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's "Mr Fix-It", Chris Hipkins, and his idea of how to get through the lockdowns in the nation's worst health crisis in a century. Cringe. Be embarrassed - especially by Hipkins' confident expectation of becoming Prime Minister in November. And realise that he may well be right, and that stupid, amoral politicians like him and Ardern are now common to much of the Western world.

Hipkins must take the blame for spending half the $60b allocated for the 'plandemic' on other stuff. Hipkins must carry the can for suppressing expert dissent. For threatening to hunt down any Kiwis who refused the noxious jab. And most heinously, for mandating the two shots for teenagers which had officially been deemed risky. "Trust the science", he said - and then followed his own advice instead.

Even though Hipkins is not a doctor, not an epidemiologist, an immunologist or a public health expert. He has a B A. Perhaps that stands for Bloody Arrogance, for his refusal to face the Commission of Inquiry.

Bloody Arrogance, deviousness, vulgarity and crass irresponsibility in government is bad enough. "God help us", says a senior lawyer - and he's talking about "abject failure" not in government but in New Zealand's rule of law and criminal justice system. "The lunatics", says John McLean, "may well have successfully taken over Asylum Aotearoa." 

He's talking about Te Wehi Ratana, the keffiyeh-clad career criminal who "redacted" (vandalised) the English version of the Treaty of Waitangi at NZ's national museum, Te Papa, with a can of painter, an axle grinder, the connivance of museum staff and publicity per kind favour of Victoria University - and is now blessed by the court "with a perfect get-out-of-jail free card".  

McLean doesn't know what New Zealand can do about it. But all that this country and any country needs is the restoration of the Social Reign and Kingship of Jesus Christ.

self-explanatory

From senior lawyer John McLean:

On 10 March 2026, the Wellington District Court dismissed all criminal charges that had been laid against a man named Te Wehi Ratana. The charges Ratana was facing were for his role in the vandalism of an exhibit at New Zealand’s national museum, Te Papa, on 11 December 2023.

 

The charges Ratana was facing included intentional damage, obstructing police, and breach of bail. Ratana’s breach of bail charge evidences that, when he was busy vandalizing, he was already facing other criminal charges. Ratana is a career criminal.

 

The exhibit that Ratana vandalized was a wooden panel repeating the precise wording of the English language version of the Treaty of Waitangi. It was a team effort.

Ratana and is co-vandals cooperated to wreck the display with paint and an angle grinder. Ratana abseiled down from Te Papa’s ceiling, personally conducting the vandalism and painting on the exhibit the words “No. Her Majesty the Queen of England is the alien. ration the Queen’s veges”.

 

Ratana and his three other co-vandals each claim membership of an activist group named “Te Waka Hourua”. The four, and their accomplices and co-conspiracists, were motivated to wreck the panel by a bonkers belief that the chiefly Maori signatories to the English and Maori language versions of the Treaty of Waitangi did not want, or sign up for, a central New Zealand government for all New Zealanders, including Maori.

 

Their belief, either mistaken or disingenuous, is indisputably ahistorical and incorrect. Two of the other vandals were also on bail for criminal charges at the time of the vandalism.

 

Te Papa leadership and staff allowed and enabled the vandalism. Te Papa’s Chief Executive at the time of the vandalism was, and still is, Courtney Johnston. Te Papa’s “Māori Co‑leader” was and still is Dr Arapata Hakiwai.

 

Aiding and abetting the vandalism of the exhibit was part of a broader plan formulated by Te Papa. Within a few months of the vandalism, Te Papa loaned the vandalized exhibit to Victoria University of Wellington’s Adam Art Gallery, where it remains. The Gallery celebrates the “redaction”, in the following glowing terms:

Te Waka Houra is a tangata whenua led group of activists and artists. They formed in Paekākāriki in 2019, as an offshoot of the Aotearoa branch of Extinction Rebellion.

 

The rōpū are known for their ongoing engagement with Te Papa Tongarewa, resulting in their action on December 11 2023, when they redacted a display panel in the Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Ngā tohu kotahitangaTreaty of Waitangi: Signs of a Nation exhibition.

 

Te Waka Hourua went on to host an exhibition called Whītiki, Mātike, Whakatika! at Enjoy Contemporary Art Space in 2024, and to publish a book with the same name with 5ever Books. While they are primarily concerned with Te Tiriti, social and climate justice, Te Waka Hourua encourages everyone to gain an understanding of our collective past, current and future conditions – including Te Tiriti – and what role we want to play in solving the collective challenges we face in society.

 

Victoria University’s celebration of the vandalism encourages public participation. Fellow Travelers are invited to pop in and create their very own screen prints of the vandalized panel. The Adam Art Gallery’s website includes this cheery content:

 

(I’ve covered joint facilitator of the celebratory screen printing, Valerie Morse, in an earlier Substack)

In addition to clothing screen-printed with evidence of his criminality, Ratana also naturally relishes and wears the keffiyeh, a scarf worn to indicate support for the Palestinians and their brutal overlords, Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas.

 

I’m told the District Court Judge who dismissed the criminal charges against Ratana is Noel Sainsbury and that the Crown Solicitor who withdrew the charges is Grant Burston of law firm Luke Cunningham Clere. We don’t know the particular reasons why the Crown prosecutor withdrew the charges or why the Judge dismissed them. Those reasons have all been kept secret.

 

It’s important, Dear Readers, to understand the difference between simple withdrawal of criminal charges, and withdrawal and dismissal. Withdrawal of charges, without dismissal, allows the charges to be re-laid later. When a judge adds dismissal, the charges cannot be re-laid.

 

The defendant is blessed with a perfect get-out-of-jail free card. Ratana is now free as a bird to romp on with his criminal activism.

Integral to Ratana’s escape from justice was his uncle, Te Ururoa Flavell, an ex-Maori Party MP. We don’t know exactly why the Court let Ratana off the hook. We do know that Flavell provided “expert” “tikanga” evidence in support of Ratana’s defence - bollocks that the Court was evidently all too keen to take on board. Flavell came up with some sort of nepotistic advocacy in favour of his annoying nephew, which the Court clearly gulped down.

 

The remarkable features of this sick subversion of New Zealand’s justice system are the brazenness of the actors, and how concerted their activities were. This sorry saga has laid bare what we’ve all strongly suspected. The neo-Marxists are operating in lockstep, with a great ground game…

We have our national museum working with anarcho-activists to wreck an exhibit. The “redacted” result is then whipped off to an art gallery run and funded by a State-funded tertiary institution to celebrate a bogus notion that a nascent nation of people with Maori ancestry is about to germinate.

 

Neo-Marxists like Morse tag in and suck on the tertiary education tit. Political partisan State prosecutors dismiss the charges, deferring to tikanga twaddle trotted out by the vandal’s uncle. The Court laps it all up and dismisses the charges. And a supplicant mainstream media reports this nasty nonsense as another marvelous and wonderful chapter in the subversion of New Zealand’s Western democracy.

 

Consider, if you will, what would happen if a white skinned New Zealand nationalist were to waltz into Te Papa tomorrow and vandalize the Maori language version of the Treaty exhibit. We know, full well, don’t we, exactly how that’d pan out.

 

The perpetrator would be imprisoned within a year. Self-evidently, New Zealand now has a Two Tier police and justice system, and a Government with no genuine appetite to do anything about the parlous predicament in which we find ourselves.

 

Working feverishly to bring all this together was, no doubt, ex-Solicitor General, Crown Law CEO and Critical Race Theorist, Una Jagose. The Ratana fiasco reeks of Jagose. I’ve commented before on this disgraceful woman (so has this blog - ed), whose term as Solicitor General ended in February 2026.

 

The Ratana judicial system debacle is much more than an unfortunate aberration, to be criticised but quickly forgotten. Ratana’s evasion of culpability represents a complete and abject failure of New Zealand’s rule of law and criminal justice system.

 

In these dark days, it’s not at all clear what can be done to right the ship. The lunatics may well have successfully taken over Asylum Aotearoa. With a Labour/Greens/Maori Party Government after the next election, the New Deal will be done and dusted. God help us.

 

John McLean is a senior lawyer who writes at John's Substack https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/john-mclean-wrecking-race-hustler-gets-a-free-pass

 

 Viktor Orbán can do it in Hungary; so could New Zealand

 

 

 

 

ALL YOU WANT TO KNOW ON SSPX RIGHT NOW

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

 

 

SSPX was right about Vat2; https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/

 

All the questions your average Catholic ever wanted to know about the Society of St Pius (SSPX), but had only Novus Ordo priests to ask, are answered below in a brief, cogent article by a priest of the Society. With the perfect storm gathering over the Vatican in the lead-up to the SSPX's consecration of bishops without the approval of 'Pope Leo XIV', your average Catholic needs to know what's what. 

The tragic reality is that in the conciliar, Novus Ordo, Synodal counterfeit church of 'Pope Leo' your average Catholic has simply no idea. They're kept in ignorance which is anything but bliss, by priests and bishops who've known nothing but Paul VI's Mass for 60 years. The truth of “Ignorantia juris non excusat” ( ignorance of the law is no excuse") will be borne in on us all at our particular judgment if not before.

Take the "Stations of the Cross" attended by a reader of this blog this evening, at a provincial Novus Ordo church. About half last week's number turned up and no wonder. The booklets were expensively printed but bore little relation to the prayers recited by the faithful on Fridays in Lent for hundreds of years. No lyric poem celebrating the Co-Redemptrix. No Our Fathers, Hail Marys or Glory Be's. No priest. 

And greeting our reader and the 20 or so who came, the foyer of the church (dedicated to St Patrick) featured a gross green cardboard cartoon leprechaun extending a glass, an invitation it seemed to a party to celebrate their patron saint. 

Below, we read the 'Dubia' submitted by Catholics to an SSPX priest. 'Dulia' on the other hand, means veneration of the saints whose lives teach Catholics the knowledge and love of God. Both words are unknown in the false conciliar religion but they're both preached by priests of the Society of St Pius X. 

self-explanatory

 

Recently, Crisis Magazine published an article titled “A Catholic’s Dubia for the SSPX,” in which the author, Daniel Waldow, asked a number of questions regarding the status of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as well as its views on some questions of concern in the postconciliar Church. The answers below were written by an SSPX priest and have been approved for publication by his superiors.

 

Dubium I: Why does the SSPX stay in irregular canonical communion with Rome when other groups that exclusively celebrate the TLM, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King, currently exist? Why does Rome approve of the FSSP and the ICK but not the SSPX? 

 

The SSPX’s legal status with regard to Rome is considered canonically irregular because it operates as a Priestly Society of Common Life Without Vows despite having been officially suppressed on May 6, 1975, by Bishop Mamie of Fribourg. The SSPX has always maintained that this suppression was of no canonical value on account of its motives and irregular form. Subsequent sanctions were imposed on the Society’s founder and upon the bishops he consecrated without a mandate in 1988, but these relate to persons rather than the institution. 

 

With regard to the FSSP and the ICK, it seems that they are tolerated by Rome:

• in part because they restrain their public activity to championing the traditional liturgy of the Church merely as a preference for an anterior form of worship rather than as a strict right and a doctrinal imperative; 
• in part because they make no public stand 
• against the doctrinal errors that presently ravage the Church; 
• and partly because the Roman authorities, in consequence of their silence on doctrinal issues, are happy for them to minister to traditional Catholics who might otherwise turn to the SSPX. 

 

Fr. Z: “The real import of the consecration of ‘The Immaculata’ church of the SSPX (Kansas, US) is not just that it was jammed & the consecration viewed by many. It’s that they DID it. They BUILT that. Now that they have demonstrated that they can build it, they will build others.”

Dubium II: Why did Pope Benedict XVI state, in a letter to all Catholic bishops, that the reason the SSPX does “not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons?” What are these doctrinal reasons and “doctrinal questions”?  

Dubium III: Does the SSPX teach that the following are intrinsic evils—i.e., actions which are always and everywhere evil in virtue of their object and which, thus, can never be justified regardless of intention or circumstances: (1) reception of the Eucharist under the species of bread by the laity on the hand, (2) distribution of the Eucharist by a lay extraordinary minister during or outside of Mass? 

 Dubium IV: Does the SSPX deny the sacramental validity of the Eucharistic consecration in the Mass of Pope Paul VI? 

 

The SSPX does not deny the sacramental validity of the Eucharistic consecration in the Mass of Pope Paul VI when the due matter, form, and intention are present.

 

Dubium V: Does the SSPX think that priests and laity commit a sin, either due to object or circumstances, by celebrating and assisting at a Mass of Pope Paul VI? 

 

The SSPX teaches that the Mass of Pope Paul VI is defective as a liturgical rite and, even if valid and offered with reverence, it will tend to weaken faith over time. A Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, also known as “The Ottaviani Intervention,” remains the seminal work of explanation in this regard, and the experience of the last half-century confirms its conclusions.

 

So, does the SSPX think that priests and laity commit a sin, either due to object or circumstances, by celebrating and assisting at a Mass of Pope Paul VI? The SSPX answers, “not necessarily,” because it distinguishes between the evil of a defective rite and the act of attendance at such a rite. The rite is objectively deficient and will necessarily erode faith over time. Attendance at such a rite is not intrinsically evil because circumstances may exist—ignorance, charity, coercion, etc.—to make it excusable.

 

For example, a soul with a genuine desire for sanctity who has never heard of the TLM, or has never been in a position to understand the nocive effect of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, would not sin by attendance at this rite on account of what the moral theologians call invincible ignorance. Indeed, the soul might spiritually benefit by attendance, but this is not on account of the rite per se, only per accidens. On the other hand, if a soul perceives the deficiency of the Mass of Pope Paul VI and has no sufficient reason to justify attendance, then that soul would sin.

 

Dubium VI: Does the SSPX think that Catholics should attend a Mass of Pope Paul VI on a Sunday or holy day of obligation if that is the only Mass which they have access to? 

 

With reference to the Dubium V response, because the Mass of Pope Paul VI is a defective rite that puts the faith of its attendees in peril, the SSPX counsels that no one should attend the rite, noting that the obligation to attend Mass cannot override the common good.

 

Now, emphasizing the distinction between the morality of the rite in itself and the morality of attending the rite, circumstances may excuse attendance and sometimes even render it necessary. Aside from the case of invincible ignorance, attendance at a Mass of Pope Paul VI might be necessary to avoid an imminent greater evil, such as family disunity.

 

In such cases, logically, one must make a further distinction between “being present at” and participating in the rite. The Catholic who is not invincibly ignorant should not participate in the rite.  A comprehensive article treating the question may be found here.

 

The first two dubia seek to identify, in a general way, why the SSPX does not have full papal approval. From an outsider’s perspective, the fact that other traditional groups such as the FSSP and ICK are fully approved by the pope suggests that a love for the TLM and all of the traditional liturgical rites is not the issue.

 

A worker installing Mary's statue on the SSPX's Immaculata church (20230 kneels for a prayer

So what is the issue? Is it doctrinal, disciplinary, both, or neither? The second dubium identifies Pope Benedict XVI’s answer to these questions. Benedict claimed that doctrine, not discipline, was the reason why he did not approve of a ministry for the SSPX within the Church. 

This was a significant change by Benedict, since doctrine is what defines Catholicism and unites one Catholic with another. Doctrine refers to truths about faith and morals which are divinely revealed by Christ and handed on and clarified by Scripture and the magisterium.

 

All Catholics are meant to profess the same doctrine, the one universal Catholic faith. We do distinguish between infallible and non-infallible teachings of the magisterium, but even the latter are binding upon the faithful unless there are grave and evident reasons to question such a teaching (see Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 25 and the CDF’s Donum Veritatis 24-31). 

 

What unites Roman Catholics and Byzantine Catholics, for example, is doctrine, not discipline. We are all Catholic despite our very different liturgical and ascetical practices. Conversely, Byzantine Catholics are not in full communion with Orthodox churches—with whom they share liturgical and ascetical disciplines—precisely because Orthodox Christians reject aspects of our Catholic doctrine.

 

And so dubia III-VI seek to clarify matters of faith and morals and distinguish them from disciplinary issues. These dubia focus on questions regarding sacramental theology and the morality of liturgical acts. From what I can tell, these are the prominent topics which divide members of the SSPX from the wider Church. 

 

So, what are the bare minimum doctrinal truths which Catholics must affirm in these areas? What are the bare minimum doctrinal truths which all Catholics—SSPX or otherwise—must agree on? 

 It seems to me that all Catholics must affirm the following: (1) lay reception of Communion on the hand and service as an extraordinary minister, while perhaps less fitting, is not evil in itself—its morality depends upon intention or circumstances; (2) the consecration at Novus Ordo Masses is valid; (3) the official prayers and actions of the Novus Ordo Mass, while perhaps less fitting than the TLM, are not intrinsically evil, and so they can be celebrated and assisted in without sin; (4) Catholics must attend Mass on Sundays and holy days so long as they can do so at and celebrated in a licit and noa Eucharistic liturgy which is approved by the pope n-sacrilegious manner; failure to do so is a grave sin. 

Growth in number of SSPX priests

 

 

I am sincerely open to correction, but it is not clear to me how denial of any of the above statements would be consistent with Catholic doctrine. At the same time, one can affirm all of these statements and still have ample room for argument regarding important disciplinary issues.

 

For example, one could argue that, given that reception of Communion on the hand is a less fitting act of reverence toward the Lord, then the Church’s discipline should never permit it, and that the decision to permit it is a prudential error.

 

Such an argument would not in any way contradict the view that lay Communion on the hand is not an intrinsic evil. Analogously, the Roman Rite requires kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer—one could insist upon this discipline without insisting that standing during the Eucharistic prayer (as Byzantine Catholics do) is sinful.  

 I emphasize that I want all baptized Catholics to be united in professing the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Faith. In order to do that, we need to share certain doctrinal commitments, including commitments regarding the nature of the sacraments and the moral character of liturgical acts.

 

My hope and prayer is that the SSPX share the above commitments with me. And if they don’t, I humbly ask them to explain why. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/a-catholics-dubia-for-the-sspx

Author

• 
  An SSPX Priest

  A priest of the Society of St. Pius X.

• 
  

  

  Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation (Heb 13:7)

Hail glorious St Patrick! Please pray for the Church