INSIDE STALINDA'S VELVET GLOVE

 To comment please open your gmail account, use my email address or FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.

Mahuta with Aussie counterpart Marise Payne: "strange"is hardly the word for it - or her

‘You don’t even have to prove you’re Maori – just to say you are’. 

Within a couple of generations, New Zealanders might all be speaking pidgin English. That's the way it looks, folks, with RNZ National and TvOne 'News' indoctrinating us all, willy-nilly, into the esoteric (given that only 4 per cent of us spikka da lingo) charms of 'te reo', sprinkling news and current affairs programmes with an increasing number of Maori phrases that mean absolutely nothing to 56 per cent of their audience.

We're told that Maori children in the past were harshly punished for speaking their first language at school. That of course would have been manifestly unfair, not to say cruel. But is a sense of collective guilt over that unfortunate aspect of our history now being manipulated to racist and separatist ends?

Amy Brooke writing in the Australian Spectator today would seem to think so:

It was a strange spectacle, the recent televised presentation of Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne with Nanaia Mahuta, whose portfolios inexplicably include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, without her having any apparent qualifications in this role.

However, chosen by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who promised to govern for every New Zealander – but has obviously only remembered the governing part – Mahuta signals with what some regard as a disfiguring facial tattoo that she’s thrown in her lot with identity politics.  As was evident in her astonishing attack on ratepayers’ established right to mount referenda to prevent councils endorsing racist policies.

On this occasion, the contrast between the carefully diplomatic address by the pleasantly-spoken Australian, in relation to the important Five Eyes alliance, with NZ now perceived as the weakest member – and the reaction of our own minister – was troubling. Far from looking calm or attentive, Mahuta seemed largely disengaged, her eyes darting here and there, apart from occasional glances towards her Australian counterpart." 

 

 

 

Brooke asks Prime Minnister Ardern:

 

"You are continuing to stir the pot of racist divisiveness within this country, which is called New Zealand  - a  fact you don't seem to like, why?

This is not Aotearoa, and you have no mandate for  promoting extremism..

Are you unaware that an independently commissioned poll found that 90% of New Zealanders rejected Aotearoa to replace - or place alongside  - our long-established name New Zealand?

It never even was a Maori name for New Zealand.

... Who gave various government organisations the go-ahead to replace, or prioritise, Aotearoa by stealth on semi-official websites, even on our passports, our banknotes?

What makes you think that you can override  the wishes of the majority by promoting a language which is now overwhelmingly not authentic Maori... to replace our far more important national and international language.  And that is English, isn't it...

Why should immigrants to this country from India, France, Germany, Hungary, Croatia, the Philippines, Asia, etc,  speaking the language of their own people - but for whom proficiency in English is also of  paramount importance - be expected to also  learn a now largely reinvented language of no relevance to them whatsoever!

Not only is this culturally insensitive - it can also be regarded as cultural bullying.

Possibly about 80% of what is now touted as "Maori" has been simply been reinvented in recent years. And, given that only about 4% of the country speak this  overwhelmingly newly-coined language, why are you having it sprinkled throughout government documents  - and trying to replace our well-known place names with Maori names?

It has become farcical, isn't it? For example,  the Maori for Inland Revenue? Recycling Centre?  Accident and Emergency Department? Social welfare?  Cycle lanes?  As with many thousands of other word and phrases,  simply made up...

While every language gradually assimilates new words,  for politicised academics to set to  inventing thousands of new words, if they are authentic -  and foist them on children in schools and make them compulsory learning for teachers and others may well be regarded as fraudulent.

New Zealanders are now feeling bullied by your government's attempts to force the country to prioritise all things supposedly Maori - particularly when there are no longer any full-blooded Maoris in this country.

Not only do many of part-Maori  descent also object to this, but it is also sad that those who would have wished to perceive the authentic language of one part of their ancestry will now find it impossible  to do s

 New Zealanders are also  deeply uneasy that you have embarked on a policy of extraordinarily  anti-democratic moves - sad that we now have government versus the people - not government by the people. ...

Since Labour ditched Anzus, New Zealand is basically defenceless against any external threat from what this extraordinary Minister of Foreign Affairs envisages, in a recent sycophantic address, as the Chinese Dragon." 

 

She is humiliating herself with her metaphorical nonsense of New Zealand represented in turn by a mythical Maori monster, a ubiquitous Taniwha. Such mumbo-jumbo parallels her tendency to say as little of substance as possible, buried in verbiage, in response to questioning by those querying the divisive directions on which she is fronting up for Ardern.

Like voters worldwide, we are accustomed to incompetence in our politicians, where the Peter Principle sees so many rise to the top, with disastrous consequences. At the very time when we invoke the spirit of the Anzacs, laying down their lives for our countries and the freedoms our governments are now removing, our glib Prime Minister is presiding over attacks on individuals and local institutions in every possible area. This crucially includes the basic right of all individuals to be treated equally, regardless of colour, gender, sex, race and creed.

This is not purely a New Zealand move, of course. Worldwide the far-Left, basically communism in drag, has ramped up its attack on democracies, promoting the anti-democratic policies of centralisation, removing as much control  as possible from local organisations and individuals – together with identity politics, disguised as ‘diversity’ – so very useful in creating tension and divisiveness.

 

Communism’s philosophy of undermining cohesiveness in every possible area is advanced not only by its disciples, but by its ‘useful fools’, and apparently Nanaia Mahuta, directly or indirectly, is a very good fit for our leader’s own ambitions.

For example, not only has Mahuta removed ratepayers’ rights to prevent councils introducing Maori wards, we are now faced with compulsory Maori wards for all local bodies being imposed with voting rights and payment for non-elected Maori on full councils. Backing none of these apartheid-type moves is any legitimate definition of who is actually Maori. Farcically, the very small minority of part-Maori so successful in claiming disadvantage for themselves because of a smidgen of Maori genetic inheritance are overwhelmingly largely European or Eurasian and often from wealthy and privileged backgrounds, although they find it convenient to ignore this.

It has been a massive con trick, long practised on all our major parties. However, Ardern has ramped up the attack on our country by authorising a plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – a proposal never put to New Zealanders when the then Prime Minister John Key, in utmost secrecy, not even allowing the media to know, snuck wily Pita Sharples, the former leader of the Maori  Party, to New York, without New Zealanders even being consulted.

Separatism? Against the wishes of 90 per cent of New Zealanders, according to a recent poll, this destructive government is pushing to replace our name with Aotearoa – featured now behind televised government speakers.

 

 

The push is on to hand over New Zealand to Maori ownership, or co-ownership,  in as many possible areas. For example, all 20 of our Primary Health Organisations are to be replaced by one national authority called Health New Zealand, responsible for running hospitals and commissioning primary and community health services. However, a newly created Maori Health Authority is to have a co-lead role, with a veto over decisions affecting us all, as part of this iron-fisted government’s commitment to separate systems based on race.

 

 

 

 

Already Maori and Pacific Islanders are prioritised for medical treatment and surgery. As a local doctor remarked, ‘You don’t even have to prove you’re Maori – just to say you are’.

 

A new census form is designed to increase the number of those identifying as Maori. Government documents are to be in a mixture of Maori and English – already causing confusion among New Zealanders, only 4 per cent of whom actually speak Maori. Road signs are to be bilingual – an immensely costly and unnecessary move – but part of the radicalised aim of achieving Maori co-governance of this country by 2024.

With local governments now to be amalgamated – removing the very concept of local – plans are under way for a new government body to control water supplies and allocation, underpinned by part-Maori activists planning to gain control of New Zealand’s water supplies – claiming ownership of streams, rivers, lakes and coastal areas. So far-reaching are the tentacles of central planning that even home owners using their own rainwater will not necessarily be exempt.

A Maori parliament, Maori court system, plus more treaty-based institutions and public education (indoctrination) programmes to deal with ‘structural racism’, ‘subconscious bias’, etc., are to accompany the return of Crown lands to Maori ownership – in addition to the billions of dollars already given in treaty settlements.

 

Every possible area of our national life is now being removed from individual and local control. As this predatory government reaches out further and further, all the evidence points to it being held in Jacinda’s hand.

 

A SAFE AREAS SUBMISSION AND A SEVERED HEAD

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.

"Where should the line be drawn (if at all) when the right of a person to be protected when accessing or providing health services comes into conflict with the right of others to express objection or dissent in the form of public protests?”

A legal opinion by leading QC Grant Illingworth has labelled Louisa Walls' Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill as poorly drafted and deeply flawed, and says that Parliament should not pass it because it diminishes basic human rights.

Last night my last-minute attempt to make a submission on the 'Safe Areas' (Lethal Areas) Bill was foiled, 'im indoors says by the Next Doors watching movies: he'd noticed internet access had been very slow all afternoon. 

It serves me right for my life-long habit of procrastinating, but having finished my submission and posted it on this blog, I found that the link wouldn't work. I finally went to bed ashamed of myself for bragging to Michelle Kaufman of Family Life International of the blog post I would make which would be my submission.

I woke up at 11.55 p m, four minutes before submissions closed. I thought God was giving me a second chance. I tore downstairs and tried the link. No internet. No submission.

Tomorrow I'll be back on the footpath outside Hastings hospital (Friday's when they kill babies). First I'll go to Holy Mass at 8 a m at Sacred Heart Hastings - in the Blessed Sacrament chapel, so I don't have to enter that awful Freemasonic church - and then I'll have to 'fess up to my fellow-vigilantes that I didn't make a submission. 

But I think they'll forgive me because last Friday a chap with a clipboard (two clipboards in fact) dashed up to me, thrust a $50 note in my hand, said "You're doing a good job" and vanished before I could ask if he'd like to join Voice for Life.

I've been known to laugh about men with clipboards but never again. Such a thing has never happened before, at least never to my fellow Latin Massgoer who stood at the other hospital carpark entrance, as he's done every week for God knows how long.

Three of the four Catholics who regularly stand there to offer help to pregnant women are Latin Massgoers. It's the TLM effect.

Anyway, back to Grant Illingworth QC:

He argues that “reasonable clarity and certainty” are both lacking in the proposed bill, and that “a laudatory purpose does not justify a poorly drafted law that significantly diminishes basic human rights. In my respectful opinion, the provisions proposed in the [Bill] are deeply flawed and should not be accepted by Parliament.” https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2021/04/safe-areas-bill-poorly-drafted-deeply-flawed-legal-opinion/

Regarding concerned individuals who hold up signs saying things like “Pregnancy Support”, Mr Illingworth says “Conduct of that kind is not unlawful under the law as it stands at present and, even if the Bill were to be enacted into law, it is difficult to see how such conduct could be prosecuted as an offence under the proposed provisions outlined above, so long as it was not accompanied by badgering, harassment, obstruction or intimidation.”

The legal opinion sounds the same alarms as the Law Commission who, when reporting on this issue in 2018, said: “The commission has not seen any clear evidence that the existing laws around intimidating and anti-social behaviour are inadequate, as would be required to justify the introduction of safe access zones…

The Commission is also mindful that safe access zones would have to be considered for consistency with rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, such as the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. For these reasons, the Commission does not suggest the introduction of safe access zones.”

Family First supports the comments made in Parliament by ACT Leader David Seymour who said last year, “[P]roponents of safe areas

... notably Terry Bellamak from ALRANZ... 

are mistakenly importing a narrative from America where those accessing abortion services are grossly harassed and obstructed… Such harm is not a common problem and can be adequately dealt with by current legislation, including the Summary Offences Act 1981 and the Trespass Act 1980.

Safe areas are an impairment to freedom of expression and create a precedent for future restrictions. What’s more the impairment is so arbitrary and weakly justified that it could serve as a justification for almost any future impairment. … The creation of safe areas is bad law-making.” 

“The Bill is an attempt to create a law without legitimate cause.

It's totalitarian. 

In New Zealand, such a Bill can only be the result of selective ideology ...

Totalitarianism. 

and not the consequence of evidentially declared need. Advocates like American activist Terry Bellamak from ALRANZ always quote extreme American examples in order to create some kind of fear in the New Zealand public’s mind. That is dishonest and is further evidence that the call for this bill is driven by the demand for ideological legislation,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“And how far will this type of law-making go? Will it prevent legitimate protests ...

Well, if they're legitimate they won't be prevented. What Bob means, I suppose, is that protests of all sorts which are legitimate now in a free society such as New Zealand's is supposed to be, will be against the law and invite criminal prosecutions, fines and/or imprisonment. Just what Stalinda wants.

... outside a gas industry conference or fossil fuel conference, a rodeo, or a political party conference? Supporters of this particular type of law should be careful what they wish for.”

Today's saint is Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church. She says: 

• “Proclaim the truth and do not be silent through fear.”
• 
  

  

  The severed, mummified head of St Catherine of Siena (1347-1380)

  
  
  

LETHAL 'SAFE AREAS' REQUIRE OUR SILENCE & SIGNAGE

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.

 pregnancy involves not one body but two 

"All that is necessary to the triumph of evil is the silence of good men" (Edmund Burke).

Ardern, Little&Co, Death Dealers to the Nation, are determined to silence all "good men" - and women - who stand outside killing facilities to save New Zealanders from the evil of infanticide. 

Yes, let's call it by its name: infanticide, even though Ardern, Little&Co now say it's fine, it's perfectly legal to kill babies up to birth. And you might say, given the election result, that New Zealand voted for it. 

Labour MP Louisa Walls' 'private' Safe Areas Bill is unmistakably a government bill in pathetic disguise. In swearing and declaring that this will be a 'conscience vote' Jacinda Ardern lies in her teeth. Again.

"Hey, I don't like you being deprived of free speech any more than you do"

For one thing, this socialist Government proved a year ago, by voting almost to a man/woman to kill babies up to birth with no anaesthetic, that it has no conscience whatsoever. Their pretence of moral probity is laughable to a degree. And the so-called 'opposition' party, led by Judith Collins who voted for the massacre of the innocents but got herself photographed praying afterwards for re-election, is hardly any better. 

hypocrisy in church

honesty in Opposition

And for another thing, Stalinda and convert-to-kindness Collins have the numbers, overwhelmingly, to destroy perhaps for ever this nation's right to free speech in hospital grounds and on the public footpaths outside.

Walls' Safe Areas Bill - for which submissions close tonight at 11.59 p m - passed its first reading with 100 MPs in favour, 15 against, and two choosing not to vote. 

RNZ National ("Ngā mihi o te ata" and if you don't understand te reo, too bad) states that this bill "will allow for safe areas to be set up around specific abortion facilities so people’s access to those services are not obstructed by protests."

More porkies. The prayer vigils throughout New Zealand (in Hastings the evangelicals who set it up call it a "pro-life outreach") are in the nature of a peaceful witness to Christian teaching on the right to life: "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13), and an offer of counselling and practical help to pregnant women who want it. 

It's their very Christianity which inflames and enrages the feminista like Ardern, Collins and Walls, who see in Christ Jesus Our Lord an enemy they can't legislate against, a power against which they are powerless. 

The Spinoff - one of this totalitarian Government's bought-and-paid-for media outlets - demonstrates this rage by calling Walls' exercise in evil "a bill that would ensure pregnant people seeking abortion don’t have to be confronted by angry mobs outside of clinics". It's a claim which would be laughable if it were not so manifestly untrue and unjust.

"Safe areas are designated spaces, at most 150 metres wide, around premises where abortions are provided where it is unlawful to intimidate, obstruct or interfere with people who are there to receive abortion care or provide it. 

"If you think that sounds like behaviour that ought to be unlawful anywhere, I agree"

... piously opines American ALRANZ operative Terry Bellamak. 

ONLY IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYWHERE IN NEW ZEALAND.

Can Bellamak be excused, as a Yank, for her ignorance? 

"Being targeted outside an abortion service feels a lot like street harassment, something almost everyone who has walked around this planet looking female has a visceral understanding of. It’s not about the stares, the whistles or the trashy come-ons. The threat of violence is foundational to the act of invading someone’s attention with sexist stares, whistles or words. 

"It’s bullying. What happens at these ‘protests’? Most anti-abortion harassment includes gory posters purporting to be aborted foetuses."

They're not "purporting to be"; they ARE aborted foetuses. They show the gory reality that we'd all prefer to think isn't the truth. But it is. 

"These usually depict foetuses at or near full term, even though 94% of abortions in New Zealand happen before the 14th week, when foetuses don’t look much like the posters. 

It's the same human life which is ended, whether in the first week or the fourteenth.   

"Many people would agree they are not appropriate in a public place."

Many people would agree they are not appropriate, period. Because they're prima facie evidence of extremely painful death at the hands of the State. At the hands of medical professionals who claim to be doctors and nurses.  

"The actions of harassers sometimes take a turn for the dramatic. High-pitched cries of “Mummy, please don’t kill me”. Shouts of “murderer” or “have mercy on your baby”. Or pelting people with baby doll parts daubed with red paint. 

In New Zealand??? Really??? Our passive populace? Our 'smiling zombies' (Gordon McLauchlan)? Bellamak is clearly living in the past, or in another country. Or in her overwrought imagination.  

Sometimes they say things like “you don’t have to do this” or “Jesus loves you”.

In New Zealand to my knowledge, until a passerby indicates interest in saving women and babies, not even that much is said.  

"But people being harassed can recognise when they are being condemned whether the weapon is abuse or condescension. And underlying the street theatre is the ever-present possibility of escalation to violence."

Perhaps we may kindly excuse Bellamak on grounds of some psychological trauma or other.  

"Across the world, even here in Aotearoa, “pro-life” extremists have committed violent acts, including 11 homicides in the US."  

Spot the non sequitur: "... Even here in Aotearoa ... including 11 homicides in the US." 

https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/08-03-2021/why-we-need-safe-areas-outside-abortion-clinics/

"Deciding on abortion law" - Bellamak and NZ's grande Dame of abortion, Margaret Sparrow

What's involved in this specious Bill providing 'Safe Areas' - which are literally lethal to one of the two patients involved in a pregnancy, and extremely unsafe in terms of mental, physical and emotional outcomes for the other? It's not just a question of life or death but of free speech, which is the breath of New Zealand society, the society nearly 30,000 Kiwis died to defend in two world wars. 

Just who will determine what the word "intimidating" means, in terms of this pernicious Bill? Or what "interfere" means? If a mischiefmaker (like Bellamak perhaps) says she's been intimidated, how can she be proved wrong? A little mouse of a woman like Bellamak could be intimidated so easily, of course. It's all so subjective.

The Law Commission, having sought input from health professional bodies, abortion service providers and health practitioners about safe access zones and having found "the majority felt that safe access zones were not needed", has stated unequivocally: "At this time the Commission does not see a strong case for this." 

So how can such draconian legislation be justified? And the burning question has to be asked: just how are Ardern, Little&Co, Death Dealers to the Nation, going to impose and implement this outrageous restriction on Kiwis' liberty?

Will hospitals erect signs on their properties to warn visitors of the hazard of inviting criminal prosecution by (even unintentionally) 'intimidating' or 'obstructing' people? 

More significantly, as it's the NZ Transport Agency's responsibility to put up signs advising motorists of speed limits, will the NZTA likewise have to erect signs on public footpaths notifying passersby of free speech limits?

But wait on: abortions are carried out during fixed hours which change from time to time as the current babykillers lose the urge or retire to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. So outside those fixed hours, would it still be against the law to "protest", "obstruct" or "intimidate"? If not, movable signage would seem indicated. 

A refinement of road cones. Just what we need. More road cones, only call them footpath cones and put them out and take in again at the hours appointed for babykilling. And to distinguish them from road cones, they could be red.

Blood-red. That would seem appropriate.

 

 

MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE MEANS COMMUNION ONLY ON THE TONGUE

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.

Not an attitude normally observed in N O priests

 

On February 7, 2021, a priest was filmed on video having a mystical experience during Mass. After Mass he went straight to the pulpit to announce that from that moment on, Holy Communion at that parish would only be given on the tongue and kneeling.

 

The video, which has gone viral with nearly two million  views, captured Fr. Fredy Fr. Fredy Leonardo Herrera Fuentes, pastor of Immaculate Heart of Mary parish in Bogotá Colombia, bowing down (practically doubled over), shaking, and crying. He was bowed down for about 20 seconds, which is a long time during Mass while everyone is waiting. 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/after-mystical-experience-priest-announces-communion-only-on-the-tongue-and-kneeling

 

Fr Fredy Leonardo Herrera Fuentes

A priest who goes by the name Miles Mariae, “the soldier of Mary,” has produced an English voiceover version of the video and given John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews permission to use it. So here is the link to the video with thanks to Father Miles Mariae.  

Well-known theologian and liturgical expert Dr. Peter Kwasniewski told Westen there's a problem with a priest at a Novus Ordo parish refusing Holy Communion to those who wish to receive on the hand in a diocese where that is permitted.

“Almost any canon lawyer (and certainly any bishop) would say no, he cannot refuse, because the Church’s discipline (however flawed it may be) expressly allows for this.”

I asked Dr. Kwasniewski what would happen in the case where a priest is so convinced of the wrongness of Holy Communion in the hand that he feels in conscience he cannot give Communion in the hand, even when the faithful demand it. 

Dr. Kwasniewski said, “It is always UNDERSTOOD that if one’s conscience says that a proposed course of action is sinful or risks committing sin or being a near-occasion of sin, one must refrain from it.” 

He added, however, that the priest making such a decision would likely get suspended by his bishop. Dr. Kwasniewski knows several priests who have been suspended over such matters.

Westen personally knows of priests who are tortured in conscience about having to administer Holy Communion in so unworthy a manner.

"In fact, my own father, Henry Westen, was an ordained deacon in the Maronite rite late in his life. He would never administer Holy Communion in the hand, and so at the parish where he served, the priests would announce that those wishing to receive on the hand should not be on the side where Deacon Westen was distributing Holy Communion. 

"For me, the matter is quite clear. Some of you may recall that in one of my previous shows I covered this issue with a video called “5 reasons why Catholics should only receive Holy Communion on the tongue.” I encourage you to watch that if you’re interested.

"This matter of the proper way to receive Our Lord is so important that Voice of the Family did a whole conference on the subject in July 2020. As part of that conference, Catholic veteran pro-life activists from across the world joined together in unison to declare that they would only receive Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling, out of reverence to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

"The joint  declaration featured  well-known Catholic pro-life leaders such as Dr. Gianna Molla, daughter of St. Gianna Beretta Molla; LifeSite’s Steve Jalsevac; pro-life warrior  Abby Johnson; C-Fam president Austin Ruse; Pachamama “destroyer” Alexander Tschugguel; Michael Matt from The Remnant newspaper; and Virginia Coda Nunziante,  head of the March for Life in Italy, and more. 

"With so much irreverence for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament today, I would beg you to consider making the sacrifice of receiving Jesus worthily, kneeling and on the tongue."

THE DARKENING CLOUDS OF TOTALITARIANISM

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.

 

*Totalitarianism: form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state.”

– Encyclopaedia Britannica

"Under Jacinda Ardern’s stewardship, New Zealand is becoming a totalitarian* state" - Dr Muriel Newman 

https://www.nzcpr.com/author/mn/. 

"Another giant leap down that path was announced last week in a Cabinet paper outlining plans to criminalise free speech. But other significant expansions of State authority are already underway.

State control of the entire economy under the guise of ‘climate change’.

With the Prime Minister imposing the harshest carbon restrictions in the world onto New Zealand, the Climate Commission is foreshadowing the need for central planning on a grand scale.

 

Why is our Prime Minister sacrificing our economy and living standards, when most other countries are doing nothing? 

The Ardern Government has already abolished our democratic right to prevent local councils from introducing Maori wards. Now they are replacing democracy with separatist rule.

According to their He Puapua report, the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be enacted by 2040. Our constitution will be replaced with one that elevates the Treaty of Waitangi into supreme law, Maori tikanga will replace the common law, and the country will be governed through a 50:50 Crown-Maori ‘partnership’. Under ... a tribal dictatorship, democracy will cease to exist.

It’s time to say “No”! To defend democracy and equal rights we have launched a “Declaration of Equality”. Please click HERE.

The Prime Minister is now embarking on an assault on our freedom of speech.

1990 Bill of Rights Act: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

That freedom is limited by the 1993 Human Rights Act. It's a civil offence to express “threatening, abusive, or insulting” opinions that are likely “to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons… on the ground of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.”

Intentionally inciting hostility is a criminal offence that can result in imprisonment or a fine.  Such prosecutions need the approval of the Attorney-General

According to the Human Rights Commission, New Zealanders’ right to make controversial or offensive remarks is not undermined by these laws – they restrict only those who are inciting serious ethnic tension or unrest: “Only where there is the potential for significant detriment to society can the right to freedom of expression be limited.”

Many other constraints on free speech also exist. There are the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Advertising Standards Authority, New Zealand Press Council, the Harmful Digital Communications Act. the Crimes Act.  Threats against people or property that cause “significant disruption of the activities of the civilian population” are an offence with a penalty of up to seven years in prison.

In 2019, following the Christchurch tragedy, the then Minister of Justice Andrew Little announced a review “to examine whether our laws properly balance the issues of freedom of speech and hate speech. The process should not be rushed, and I expect a report for public comment towards the end of the year… Protecting our crucially important right to freedom of speech, while testing whether the balance is right regarding ‘hate speech’, needs a robust public discussion from all quarters. This will ensure all our citizens’ rights are protected.”

The promised public consultation never eventuated.

Ardern, Little&Co, Death Dealers to the Nation, lying again. 

No open and transparent process; instead secret discussions held with groups campaigning for harsher laws.

The Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite claimed hate speech was a “tricky thing” to navigate. He wanted to keep discussions “away from the political fray”, to prevent them being “derailed” and to “avoid protests”.

NZ First refused to support any restrictions of New Zealanders’ right to free speech. So Labour promised a law change: “Labour will extend legal protections for groups that experience hate speech, including for reasons of religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation, by ensuring that we prohibit speech that is likely to incite others to feel hostility or contempt towards these groups under the Human Rights Act.”

Their plan was to use the Human Rights Act to provide statutory protection to groups based not only on ‘race’, but also on religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation.

Then the Royal Commission into the Christchurch shootings released its report,. They recommended criminalising anyone deliberately inciting hostility by inserting section 131 of the Human Rights Act into the Crimes Act, increasing the penalties from three months in jail to at least two years, including ‘religion’ as a protected characteristic alongside ‘race’, and broadening the scope of ‘hate speech’ from an intent to ‘incite’ hostility to an intent to ‘stir’ it up.

But this week political commentator Chris Trotter questions the Government’s plan to enact Royal Commission recommendations to restrict our freedom, when nothing could have stopped the ‘lone wolf’ attack:

“The Royal Commission’s finding that no state agency could have prevented Tarrant from carrying out his deadly intent – except by chance – is correct. He understood that he must do nothing to draw the attention of the authorities.

The state can punish Lone Wolves, but it cannot stop them. In attempting to minimise the terrorist threat, however, the state can eliminate our freedoms.”

Chris warns: "Even when such extensions are introduced in response to a terrorist atrocity, we need to ask ourselves: would these new powers have prevented it?”

 

'Minister of Justice' Kris Faafoi

 

Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi wants all free speech breaches criminalised – not just deliberate, but  unintentional; to widen the law to include an intent to “stir up” hatred; to strengthen penalties from three months jail to three years – even though the Royal Commission recommended two years – with fines increased from $7,000 to $50,000.

The Minister wants protection expanded to include “all groups listed under the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 21 of the Human Rights Act”.

So under Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government, you will not only have to mind your Ps and Qs when it comes to discussing race and religion, but also sex, marital status, ethical belief, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation. The only group that will not be protected by Minister Faafoi’s new law will be white able-bodied working age males!

The Ardern Government plans to use these law changes to massively expand the concept of ‘incitement to discriminate’. "Examples of inciting discrimination of a group include encouraging their exclusion or unfavourable treatment in the provision of goods and services, rental housing, or employment. As it is unlawful to discriminate against population groups, it should also be unlawful to incite others to discriminate against these groups.”

Landlords and employers beware – if someone alleges unfavourable treatment the police may come knocking!

Many other changes are proposed by Minister Faafoi. Some are being withheld from the public. “Groups spoken with also expressed their desire to address discrimination and hate speech in society more broadly than just through the incitement process”; but how that is to be put into effect is fully redacted.

Is the Minister proposing a new department of Thought Police?

In Jacinda Ardern’s totalitarian State, few New Zealanders will speak their mind for fear of a criminal prosecution. 

Through the imposition of State authority over the economy using carbon regulations, over democracy through separatist rule, and over free speech using hate speech laws, New Zealand will be a shadow of the vibrant, free society that we all love.

These changes herald the most dramatic expansion of government influence in New Zealand’s history, and it’s happening at an extraordinary pace, while Ardern’s socialist government has a just a three year window of unbridled control. It's happening with very limited scrutiny given the lack of independence in the media and lack of transparency in government.

All of these changes are seismic but the threat to freedom of expression is the most ominous. Free speech is the essence of a free society. It is the very oxygen of a democracy and individuality. Free speech is how knowledge is developed and shared, and the most effective bulwark against tyranny.

As Andrew Little explained as Minister of Justice: “Protecting freedom of speech is vital to hold those in authority to account, challenge the socially and culturally dominant, and enable society to progress. Freedom of speech can give force to new ideas, but also cause discomfort and offence. It is usually the first right to be lost under oppressive regimes, and among the first to be restored, at least in name, after revolutionary change.”

These proposals have been approved by Cabinet.

Jacinda Ardern plans to take away not only our right to criticise others, but also our right to criticise her and her Party.

Including ‘political opinion’ as a protected characteristic in hate speech laws puts New Zealand on course to become the North Korea of Oceania."

 

Does this take your fancy?

THE NOVUS ORDO EFFECT ON ST PATRICK'S WAIPAWA

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.

There's more explicit Christianity inscribed on the Waipawa Cenotaph than was preached by the priest at the 150th Jubilee of St Patrick's Catholic Church Waipawa this weekend.

"To the honour and glory of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost", runs the inscription on this little town's fine memorial to the fallen. 

 Well God, as in 'let's thank God', did get a mention in Father's homily at St Patrick's this morning for Good Shepherd Sunday - twice, in fact. As for Jesus Christ the Good Shepherd Himself, He didn't rate. Not at all. The Mass was "all about celebrating ourselves." That's what Father said. Truly. You couldn't make it up.

I'd like to quote something of Cardinal John Dew's homily at the Jubilee Mass yesterday but I can't remember a word of it. Probably because of the trauma of hearing him preach the good shepherd who does not abandon his flock.

Bishop Peter Cullinane was there too, of course, concelebrating with several other priests. One wonders if they all individually said private Masses yesterday morning, as they would have before Vatican II, with each separate Sacrifice of Calvary re-enacted calling down untold blessings on a world in desperate need. Reluctantly, one would conclude that no, those Masses went unoffered.  

And it's reluctantly that I write this, because the cardinal, the bishop and the priests are products of this age in the Church. The Novus Ordo has done its work. 

So much good will and kindness and hours of hard work went into the Jubilee, given so freely by a superb team of dedicated people (chiefly women, it should be said). And the Jubilee dinner last night was well-attended by our lovely parishioners and a fine time was had there by all.

St Patrick's Church itself - the architectural jewel of Waipawa and probably the most beautiful church in the entire Diocese of Palmerston North - after a new paint job and adorned with sumptuous flowers, looked stunning.

the sanctuary

In the sanctuary

But the sad truth which must be faced and should be examined is that for the Jubilee Mass yesterday, celebrating 150 years of Catholic history in Central Hawke's Bay and celebrated by the cardinal (a former parishioner), the church wasn't as full as it would be for your average funeral. 

in the porch

No amount of gorgeous lilies, be they ever so expertly arranged, could disguise that fact, or completely divert attention from the preponderance of grey heads in the congregation, or from the lack of younger people to proclaim the readings and lead the POF, and of altar boys. I think commonsense and sheer lack of space in the little porch might have dictated the abolition of sign-in nonsense and bottles of 'sanitizer', but sadly there was still no holy water in St Patrick's unique conch-shell fonts. And no "Hail Glorious St Patrick" was sung!   

Look, the jubilee book is a fine production, text and photographs and history most professionally recorded; there was food in abundance and beautiful flowers everywhere. 

In one of the two holy water fonts

But. The talented team of floral artists had seemingly completely overlooked the statue of Our Lady - although its opposing number, the Sacred Heart, was well-decorated. That detail might seem neither here nor there, but as a pointer to the plight of the parish it could be hugely significant. (P S On Monday morning when the flowers from the Municipal Theatre dinner venue were imported, still there was nothing placed in front of the Blessed Virgin in the church.) 

Since Vatican II Mass counts have plummeted (while the population exploded) and many children at the parish school, St Joseph's, don't present for Holy Communion, we must assume because they're not baptised and so, not Catholic, which makes somewhat of a mockery of Catholic schools.. And if it weren't for the Philippinos (God bless 'em), there'd be precious few baptisms, or babies and children at Mass.

the statue of Our Lady

Our Lord desires - He actually insists - that His Mother be greatly honoured. In Holy Trinity Parish, to which St Patrick's belongs, public recitation of the Rosary died out several years ago with the departure of an Irishman, George Timmins (born Geoirge O'Toimmins, but Kiwis couldn't get the hang of it). The Catholic Women's League with its devotion to Mary (Cardinal Dew's mother Joan was a past-president), faded away similarly and as for the Children of Mary in their veils and blue mantles, they're but a very distant memory. 

It's probably not since the pre-Vatican II parish missions of the redoubtable Redemptorists that such a thing as devotion of reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary has been preached in Holy Trinity Parish.

"During the messages of the Angel (of Fatima) in 1916, and again during the apparitions of Our Lady on June 13, July 14, and shortly after that in the apparitions of Pontevedra, Heaven urgently asks for reparation for all "the sins by which God is offended ... for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference" which wound the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, and finally, for "the blasphemies and ingratitude" of men who pierce the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

Dante's 'Inferno'

"This grave and terrible warning ... seems to us like an echo of the first part of the Secret (of Fatima) with its terrifying vision of hell: "So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against Me that I (Our Lady) come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray" -The Whole Truth about Fatima, the Secret and the Church by Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart.

So we see that this Faith of ours, the Catholic Faith, is not a cakewalk. Not a social club that has outings called Mass like concerts where you laugh and chat while waiting for the entertainment to start, and begin again the moment it's over while Christ Jesus Our Lord is still our Guest, and deeply offended by talking in His Presence. 

At jubilees, Christmas and Easter people turn up who haven't darkened the door for months or years, and present themselves for Holy Communion. If they're not conscious of unrepented serious sin, well, "Who am I to judge?" as Jorge Bergoglio has infamously said. But God has implanted in every man, no matter how ignorant, pagan or badly catechised, an instinctive knowledge of good and evil.

And if they knew the risk they were running of making sacrilegious Communions - hell, for ever and ever - if they'd heard hell preached any time in the last 50 years surely they'd go to Confession first. That is, if they had time for another trip to town or along to the church, for the very rare occasions when confessions are heard.

But they don't hear hell preached. We're all going to heaven, alleluia! The hell revealed to the little children at Fatima - by their Blessed Mother, the Mother of God - in order to save them and as many souls as possible from that terrible eternal fate, is considered in the world of Novus Ordo to be not eternal at all, but a thing of the past. It defies logic, but there you go. 

I had a chat after Mass with a parishioner who shall remain nameless, whose liberal Catholicism - a product of the N O - would doubtless be shared by most in his 'community'. I don't know for sure, because the practice of the faith is never mentioned. Not around me, anyway. 

I opened with a sincere thank you his input, for his time and expertise and we were getting on famously - until I said I'd put the disappointing turn-out down to 60 years of the Novus Ordo.  He said he'd put it down to societal effects. I said if we'd retained the traditional Latin Mass the societal effects would have been much less harmful. And then I mentioned the Abortion Law Act (ALA).

I asked if he knew what it entailed: killing babies up to birth without anaesthetic, sex-selective abortions, no parental notification of their pregnant teens etc etc. Hey, it's a great conversation starter. It can be a bit of a conversation ender, too.

He wouldn't confirm or deny that he knew what's going on now in our hospitals. But he did say that he thought abortion wasn't such a big issue. 

"Not such a big issue as what?" I asked. But I did assure him he was on the right side, 'Pope Francis' having stated that fighting social injustice is as important as fighting abortion. 

"Well. Sending young people to war," he said. I said at least young people had a life and could choose what to do with it. Then he wanted to know on what basis I thought abortion was a big issue."It's all through Scripture for a start," I said. 

"Where?" he asked. That nearly floored me but I rallied, and quoted Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed thee, I knew thee." But the conversation was going downhill, and when Donald Trump came into it it was all but over. 

"Trump's so divisive," he said. 

I defended him. I defended Trump! I must be mad! Even if he is the most pro-life president in US history! 

My interlocutor thought that standing outside a church with a bible in his hand was just despicable. I said, "So you judged him as insincere," and then I went from bad to worse by attacking Biden, for systematically undoing all the good that Trump accomplished.

At that point my fellow-parishioner thought we'd call it a day. I agreed and proffered an excuse for such appalling bad manners, talking about justice instead of the weather or food or medical procedures: I said I'd reached the age where time is growing short, and that "the night cometh when no man can work" (Jn 9:4).

In other words, I said, I believe that we must speak the truth, no matter how unpalatable, because before long we'll face God at our particular judgment and be called to account for our witness, or the lack of it.  

I think we parted friends. I hope so. He was honest, after all, in admitting that he thought abortion isn't such a big issue. 

Killing babies in their mothers' wombs, without anaesthetic, isn't such a big issue. How does a life-long, committed-insofar-as-Mass-attendance goes-Catholic, come to believe that? Because he doesn't know the teaching of the Church, because he hasn't been catechised. He hasn't heard the teaching of the Church preached from the pulpit. 

It's the Novus Ordo effect. 

A reader of this blog would disagree. He'd say it's the Vatican II effect.

And then I'd say the Novus Ordo is the chief manifestation of the Vatican II effect. And he'd say the collapse of Catholic schools is the most obvious manifestation of “the spirit of Vatican II”.

And I'd say the most obvious manifestation of "the spirit of Vatican II"- the collapse of Catholic schools - has been achieved by the Novus Ordo.

Game, set and match? I wonder. 

But I certainly didn't wonder at the poor attendance at the 150th Jubilee Mass yesterday, or at the Sunday Mass for the whole parish (usuallly celebrated in the two churches) this morning, or the excess of food, left over from the day before. I expected it, because that is the Novus Ordo effect.

self-explanatory

To quote Dr Peter Kwasniewski  https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/11/on-fiftieth-anniversary-of-novus-ordo.html 

"This is a monumental flaw baked into the Novus Ordo: the “smells and bells” are only optional, at the whim of the people in charge. Consequently, everything depends on the education, good taste, and orthodoxy of the pastor or the celebrant, or whoever is entrusted with decision-making power. 

Yet such optionitis combined with the current ecclesiastical power structure is a deadly combination: all it takes is one too many complaints to the bishop and boom!, Father Incensus Oriens is gone, sent scurrying across town or away to the boonies; the next guy comes in, and destroys, in a matter of weeks, the work of beautification and resacralization that it may have taken years or decades to build up. We all know this happens."

Do we? If we do know, then we're pretending that we don't. Just like we're pretending that Jorge Bergoglio is pope. 

St Robert Bellarmine:

"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church."