Gov­ern­ment by de­cep­tion

The Northland Age - - Opinion - By El­liot Ik­ilei, New Con­ser­va­tive

How long will we tol­er­ate de­cep­tion as the first stage in com­mu­ni­ca­tion by the state to the peo­ple? We have be­come ac­cus­tomed to de­cep­tion com­ing from gov­ern­ment; in­deed de­cep­tion has be­come a pat­tern for Labour-led gov­ern­ments. When­ever a con­tentious is­sue of im­por­tance to New Zealan­ders arises, Labour as­sures us that it is in our best in­ter­est to think the way they say we should.

Ex­am­ples of de­cep­tion dur­ing con­tentious is­sues in­clude the jour­ney to­wards mar­riage re­def­i­ni­tion, when Labour MP Tim Bar­nett stated: “The Civil Union Bill is an ac­cept­able al­ter­na­tive; mar­riage can re­main un­touched.” He­len Clark was even stronger, quoted as say­ing, “Mar­riage is only for het­ero­sex­u­als. The Gov­ern­ment is not — un­der­line not — chang­ing the Mar­riage Act. That will re­main as an op­tion only for het­ero­sex­ual cou­ples.” And, as ex­pected, once the Civil Union Bill was passed, it was not long be­fore mar­riage was re­de­fined, much to the glee of Bar­nett and Clark.

Dur­ing the con­tentious early days of the anti-smack­ing bill, Green MP Sue Brad­ford stated, “Smack­ing has never been a crim­i­nal of­fence, and still isn’t.” He­len Clark, re­spond­ing to an in­ter­viewer who asked if smack­ing should be banned, an­swered with, “Ab­so­lutely not! I think you’re try­ing to defy hu­man na­ture.”

Again, sev­eral years af­ter many good par­ents had been dragged through the courts, had chil­dren ripped from their homes, and ex­po­nen­tial in­creases in no­ti­fi­ca­tions, with no re­duc­tion in ac­tual abuse, in­deed an in­crease, Sue Brad­ford re­sponded to the lat­est num­bers with, “My bill was never in­tended to solve that prob­lem.”

New Con­ser­va­tive, the first po­lit­i­cal party to pub­licly stand and con­demn the UN Com­pact for Mi­gra­tion, af­ter­wards be­ing joined by Act and Na­tional, still notes that this Labour/Greens/NZ First Gov­ern­ment seeks to tell us what to think, to pacify our thoughts with words of soft­ness or strength, which­ever will get us to close our mouths and con­form. This is fun­da­men­tal po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness.

“I would not sign some­thing that took away our sovereign right to man­age our own im­mi­gra­tion, but be­cause there’s been even the small­est shred of doubt, we’re go­ing to seek some in­for­ma­tion . . . ” “My gut says, based on what’s on pa­per, this does not af­fect our own mi­gra­tion.” — PM Jacinda Ardern.

“The only con­cern we would have is whether or not we were com­pro­mis­ing this coun­try’s sovereignt­y.” — Deputy PM Win­ston Peters.

“It is paramount that New Zealand, a re­spon­si­ble in­ter­na­tional cit­i­zen, be part of the co-op­er­a­tive so­lu­tions ini­ti­ated by the Com­pact.” — Gol­riz Ghahra­man, Green MP.

And to re­spond to the as­ser­tions made by those who rule us cur­rently:

■ At the Mo­rocco mi­gra­tion con­fer­ence, the 164 coun­tries ex­pected to sign were asked if there were any is­sues with the pact. New Zealand de­clined to raise any con­cerns, and the mo­tion was passed that all the par­tic­i­pat­ing coun­tries, in­clud­ing New Zealand, have now adopted the UN Mi­gra­tion Pact. Ap­plause fol­lowed the mo­tion. (https:/ /glob­al­news.ca/video/rd/1393871427­514/)

■ Ger­many’s chan­cel­lor An­gela Merkel im­me­di­ately fol­low­ing the con­fer­ence, stated, “So then, dur­ing the UN Gen­eral Assem­bly next week, the pact will once again be up for de­bate and a de­ci­sion will be made on whether to ac­cept it. At this time a mem­ber state can de­mand a vote. When two-thirds of the rep­re­sented coun­tries agree then it is valid for all. That’s how ma­jor­ity de­ci­sion-mak­ing works.” (https:/ /youtu.be/XnX6uBFySE­Y)

When two-thirds of the rep­re­sented coun­tries agree then it is valid for all.

How long will we tol­er­ate de­cep­tion as the first stage in com­mu­ni­ca­tion by the state to the peo­ple?

New Con­ser­va­tive de­mands that the Labour-led Gov­ern­ment re­spect the sovereignt­y of our great na­tion, and with­draw from con­tin­u­ing en­gage­ment with the UN Global Com­pact on Mi­gra­tion, re­join­ing our tra­di­tional al­lies, and re­gain­ing some of the in­tegrity we have lost through this push against our na­tional sovereignt­y.

"Again, sev­eral years af­ter many good par­ents had been dragged through the courts, had chil­dren ripped from their homes, and ex­po­nen­tial in­creases in no­ti­fi­ca­tions, with no re­duc­tion in ac­tual abuse, in­deed an in­crease, Sue Brad­ford re­sponded to the lat­est num­bers with, “My bill was never in­tended to solve that prob­lem.”"

El­liot Ik­ilei.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.