Government by deception
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.”"