Racism won the 2023 election

If you have been paying attention to New Zealand's 2023 election campaign, you would have noticed a distinct anti-Maori and anti-poor sentiment coming through from right-wing political parties, who have subsequently won in a landslide.

Some of this campaigning was clearly designed to get attention in an "Iwi versus Kiwi" sort of way. However, much of it is actually what the right-wing believes. For instance, many of those who support NACT want to abolish dual language road signs, not because they have difficulty reading them, but because they want to ethnically cleanse away any sign of a successful multicultural society.

Despite their obviously elitist strategy of making the wealthy richer at the expense of the poor, soon-to-be Prime Minister Christopher Luxon continues to claim that he will govern for all New Zealanders.

But you only need to recall some of Luxon's statements during the campaign, such as describing poor people as "bottom feeders," to realize that the National Party will divide New Zealand along class lines and cause many in poorer areas to again experience the difficulties of living in a third-world country.

Unfortunately, in politics, words are very cheap, and it hasn't taken long for the soon-to-be Prime Minister to flip-flop on his assurances (presumably to guarantee a coalition deal is struck with ACT Party leader David Seymour) concerning a worthless and expensive referendum on the country's founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi.

On Morning Report Luxon is no longer ruling out a referendum on the Treaty. That didn't take long to backtrack on pre-election promises.

— Ms WonderOutLoud (@MsWonderOutLoud) October 15, 2023

You might assume from this result that National's blueprint to deprive impoverished mainly Māori communities of even the basic essentials, such as free school lunches in lower socio-economic areas, did not matter to the electorate. But in reality, most voters simply were not properly informed about the implications of putting a far-right government in charge.

Instead, the right wing ran a fear-based campaign using incorrect information via a biased mainstream media that was designed to keep Christopher Luxon in the spotlight. Their predominantly elderly white target audience, who are shielded away in the safety of their gated communities from any ramifications of the class warfare they support, lapped up the right-wings propaganda like never before.

This result is a win for racism and the power of disinformation as much as it is a win for the National and ACT Party.

Will racism win the election?

You may have noticed that since becoming leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon's favorite way to gain attention is through a bit of Maori-bashing. Some might claim that he should be afforded some leniency because he's a novice politician. However Luxon and the right wing in general have been particularly contrived in the way they use identity politics to remain in the media spotlight.

From ruling out working with Te Pāti Māori, whom Luxon labels "radicals", to promising to remove Māori language road signs and replace dual language Ministry logos, Luxon has recently been emboldening racists like never before on the campaign trail. He has even promised to scrap the Māori Health Authority, change sentencing laws, and repeal co-governance legislation (which would disproportionately and negatively affect Māori people), in what has been a relentlessly racist campaign similar to Don Brash's infamous campaign in 2004, which subsequently resulted in the National Party losing the election.

Yesterday, Maori News reported:

'What do we do about that radical organisation, the Waitangi Tribunal?': Luxon responds to Māori-related questions at public meeting 

But most of the questions he received afterwards were expressed as complaints about other issues, especially race relations and the role of Māori in society, the NZ Herald says. 

“Where do you stand on the fact that the Māori language is given priority?” asked a woman called Rita, who said she had emigrated from Britain 20 years ago. The audience applauded. 

Luxon made it clear his party stood for “one person, one vote”. It would “scrap the Māori Health Authority” and say “no to co-governance and separate systems”.

The problem for Luxon is that most Kiwis are not racist, so he has to tread a very fine line between the extreme sentiments expressed by white supremacists and their political party of choice, the ACT party, and those who quietly accept racism and will support National for other things such as their fiscal policies, which are largely uncosted and few and far between. This has resulted in Luxon often stepping over the line, whereby either Chris Bishop or Nicola Willis have had to try and make excuses for or roll back Luxon's racist statements.

Of course, the National Party's racist campaigning only works if their media propagandists are also able to promote the idea that New Zealand is a completely divided country. To a degree, they have been successful in making older, predominantly white New Zealanders more fearful that their privilege will end if the lives of impoverished people improve, which, in reality, is simply not the case. Collectively, everyone is poorer if a sector of the population is impoverished due to regressive government policy based on race, particularly when the target group has historically been marginalised by similar socially destructive legislation that has yet to be properly rectified.

However, the main problem with Luxon's racist campaigning isn't so much that he's promoting disunity; it's more that the National Party and mainstream media are causing real-world problems for a minority group while trying to gain support from the majority. In essence, this election isn't just about who has the best policies; it's more about how racist New Zealand is and how divided we wish to be in the future?

Posie Parker - Arsehole of the Week

Nobody likes a fascist, except other fascist’s of course. Thankfully they were completely outnumbered in Auckland last Saturday when a supposed advocate for women’s rights, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull aka Posie Parker, tried to give a public speech about how transgender people are worthy of persecution.

You can understand why Parker and her followers were met with fierce resistance. She was after all promoting hatred similar to Nazi propaganda against minority groups, a form of dangerous disinformation that some deluded politicians believe is her right to express, presumably because they share similar bigoted views.

Today, RNZ reported

'Worst place' - Posie Parker leaves NZ after failed events

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, shared a photo on social media showing her being escorted by police through Auckland Airport.

She left her rally at Albert Park in Auckland yesterday without speaking after being overwhelmed by thousands of heckling counter-protesters and pelted with tomato juice.

…

Parker posted to Twitter and said she was leaving 'the worst place for women she has ever visited'.

Clearly the British anti-trans activist wasn’t closed down because she’s a woman. Her speech was halted by people power because she’s promoting hatred towards an at risk group who’re tired of suffering the type of abuse and stigmatisation that Parker and her fanatics are promoting.

Posie Parker knows this, but instead of letting that understanding govern her actions, she attempted to manipulate the narrative again by playing the victim card.

A local group supporting her visit, Speak Up For Women NZ, had already announced the scheduled rally today in Wellington had been cancelled due to security concerns.

Auckland Pride rejected the idea the activist had abandoned her Wellington plans due to threats of violence.

During a series of Tweets, she said a mob "had assaulted women standing up for their rights".

In reality Parker had some Watties Tomato Sauce poured on her head, an instance that will likely be viewed by Police as unworthy of an arrest. Another anti-transgender activist fell over while trying to push her way through a crowd of counter-protesters. She was lucky to not get arrested by police herself.

Most people will realise that Parker's claims are entirelly ludicrous, being that the main incident of violence was against Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson, who got knocked over on a pedestrian crossing by a Destiny Church motorcyclist. He stupidly failed to stop, which is a crime punishable by up to three months in jail.

Last Sunday, RNZ reported:

Marama Davidson hit by motorcyclist after Posie Parker protest

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson was knocked to the ground by a motorcyclist who appeared to fail to stop at a pedestrian crossing after today's counter-protest against British anti-transgender activist Posie Parker.

In images published by other media, Davidson was seen waving a 'Trans Solidarity' sign just before she was struck.

So, tell me again who was being violent?

Marama Davidson didn’t let that injurious incident stop her from giving a speech to the overall peaceful protesters, unlike the coward Posie Parker who obviously cannot handle the jandal.  

The manipulative TERF has in fact received the response she intended to provoke. Her deluded followers are now more likely to donate because they've had their defunct belief systems entrenched. You could tell this by the look of glee on Parker's face as she was led away by Police, which clearly showed that her intentions were anything but wholesome.

What we don't want in New Zealand is more grifter's like Posie Parker promoting hatred towards minority groups to illicit donations. Instead we, and our politicians, should be fostering an inclusive society that helps everybody reach their full potential irrespective of the gender or sexual orientation people are born with.

The real reason Jacinda Ardern resigned

You’ve really got to wonder at the introspection, or lack thereof, from much of the mainstream media post Jacinda Ardern stepping down. Some so-called journalists haven’t even taken a breath before once again putting the boot in, which clearly shows their inherent bias and lack of any misgivings about fueling the unprecedented levels of abuse Ardern has unfairly received during her tenure as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

In light of the vile threats that have plagued her, Ardern’s decision to resign is entirely understandable. Some of these threats were even directed towards Ardern's young daughter Neve, making it a decision about serving her country or protecting family. It's therefore doubtful that any level-headed Kiwi, particularly those of the female persuasion, would begrudge such a difficult decision to make.

Today, RNZ reported:

Jacinda Ardern will need 'more ongoing protection than any PM in NZ's history'

Departing Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will need more ongoing security and protection than any former New Zealand PM, according to political scientist and former intelligence worker Paul Buchanan.

“Let’s start by saying things have changed dramatically since the day John Key stepped down, and one might say fundamentally,” Buchanan said.

“The security requirements for ex-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern are going to be far tougher than any previous prime minister – by a lot.”

Threats against Ardern are well documented and were recorded to have tripled between 2020 and 2022. In mid-January police started investigating after leaflets threatening to “eradicate” Ardern were delivered to houses in Northland.

A good example from the various articles written by those trying to absolve their role in provoking this unprecedented amount of resentment being directed towards Jacinda Ardern, which has ultimately resulted in the Prime Ministers resignation, is this piece from 1 News reporter Jessica Mutch McKay.

 

Last Thursday, 1 News reported:

A surprise Ardern’s resignation came so soon

She said that being prime minister takes a lot of hunger, and "the prime minister has decided today that on her own terms, she's just not anymore".

Mutch McKay entirely ignoring the real reasons for the resignation and claiming that Ardern is no longer hungry enough to be Prime Minister is another misdirect to take the focus off of her own misreporting.

And here is muckraker Tova O'Brien claiming that Ardern has resigned simply to save face.

Jacinda Ardern wouldn't have quit if she genuinely thought she could win

Cut out the poison and all will be well but I struggle to truly believe that. Elections are presidential - the likely candidates for her job Hipkins, Wood and Allen are all good but they aren’t Ardern good.

She was the reason there was still a real contest in this election - she was the star power despite many in the country turning on the government.

Like John Key before her, Jacinda Ardern has chosen to protect her legacy and save face in the face of a loss.

So, Ardern is apparently something to be cut out, but also the only chance Labour had of winning the next election. Talk about a ridiculous contradiction in terms and a sickening way to describe a world-renowned leader. I mean how exactly does the largely irrelevant O'Brien even begin to justify likening anyone, particularly a Prime Minister of New Zealand, to cancer?

Of course they, like most of the right wing propagandists who are trying to reclaim the narrative, are at pains to avoid the real reasons for Ardern stepping down. In effect dirty politics has won again, which is why the right wing keep using such underhanded tactics to undermine the left.

The deluded O'Brien also likening Ardern’s justifiable decision with Key’s downfall is laughable, being that the mainstream media has never divulged the real reason behind his resignation. But sure, rewriting history as well as looking at the tea leaves to predict the future apparently now passes as political analysis in this country.

Even the usually level headed Duncan Greive decided to have a brain fart about the mainstream medias continued biased reporting against Jacinda Ardern.

On Saturday, The Spinoff reported:

Jacinda and the media: a very complicated relationship

For years, her extraordinary communication skills buoyed her leadership. But then the public mood changed – and the media followed suit.

 

Obviously much of the mainstream media has been terribly negative towards the Labour Party and Ardern throughout their previous two terms of governance, even when the Prime Ministers public opinion polling eclipsed that of any previous or likely future leaders.

As well as the bad takes from a large number of New Zealand’s biased political commentators, a few American fools and other offshore based idiots have been trying to interfere in our political discourse. In particular Australian magnate Rupert Murdoch’s gang of disinformation merchants have been attempting to sway public opinion against the New Zealand Labour led Government. But thankfully not everyone is putting up with this kind of unjustified political shenanigans.

Here is some good fact checking by Alan Austin, who debunks a number of their preposterous claims.

Also on the other side of the coin, Alison Mau penned an excellent article about the misogyny all female leaders face, and the abuse Jacinda Ardern in particular has endured.

 

Yesterday, Stuff reported

Shame on our misogyny: It's no wonder Jacinda Ardern was driven from office 

Even as she announced her resignation, the pack was howling about the emotion she struggled to contain. The common denominator being hate directed at her personally, rather than the actions of her government.

As she resigned, Ardern avoided naming the wave of abuse as a contributing factor. She has not talked about the toll these vile attacks have taken on her and her family - indeed, she cannot talk about the thing that often drives women from positions of public power.

She can't name the evil as she steps down because If she does, she loses. Her attackers would have whipped her for it. As Massey University School of Management Senior Lecturer Dr Suze Wilson put it, she could not admit to it, because it would have told the trolls they'd won.

 

In my opinion, it seems likely that the vast majority of voters will correctly understand Ardern’s predicament and in light of the unwarranted abuse she’s received provide Labour with a third term in power. It will certainly harden the left wings resolve in the lead up to the next election.

We may even see some steadfast right-wing supporters change their voting preferences, being that their wealth has in recent years markedly increased thanks to Labour and the tactics from the right wing are largely unpalatable. Obviously most business leaders wouldn’t have prospered if a National government were mismanaging the country during the Covid-19 pandemic.

And that’s where the right wing’s problems generally reside. Not only is the opposition leader entirely flat footed and promising economic death by a thousands cuts, most voters will likely sympathise with a left wing leader who has always had Aotearoas best interests at heart and clearly deserved far better treatment from the fourth estate.

We obviously have political parties in New Zealand with vested interests who’ve been actively undermining the current government via the mainstream media. They’ve effectively been sabotaging our progress in order to benefit themselves and bolster their own political prospects.

The irony is they’ve got what they wanted, but the fallout from their continued negative campaigning may just upset their chance to once again cook the countries books. So let's not have anymore premature narratives solely bassed on the right wings' dodgy polling. The election isn’t a slam-dunk by any means and the National and Act Party's don't have it in the bag, because as we all know, a week can be a very long time in politics.

Sue Grey - Arsehole of the Week

There really isn’t any nice way to say this, but Sue Grey is a despicable and loathsome person. Not only has she been promoting disinformation about vaccines in order to promote her own lawyers practice, the discredited anti-vaxxer is now at the centre of a controversy whereby she encouraged the parents of a sick baby to delay his life saving operation.

Of course someone who is permanently down the rabbit hole isn’t going to believe what the doctors or science says, which is that blood from vaccinated donors isn’t harmful and won’t vaccinate recipients. Instead, Grey is going to use misinformation to convince a couple of vulnerable parents to put the life of their sick baby in danger to further her own goals.

On Thursday, the BBC reported:

New Zealand places child in anti-vax blood case in custody

A New Zealand court has ordered a child at the centre of a case over blood transfusions from donors vaccinated against Covid-19 be taken into temporary custody by health officials.

The four-month-old boy is in a hospital in Auckland awaiting urgent treatment to correct a heart disorder.

His parents had blocked the operation and sought a court ruling that he receive blood from unvaccinated donors.

But the High Court ruled the operation was in the child's "best interest".

 

Grey and her accomplices went to extraordinary lengths to try and prevent this life saving surgery…an operation that has thankfully now gone ahead and been successful because of Court and Police intervention.

Justice Gault also rejected a request from the parents' lawyer, Sue Grey, that a tailored donor service with blood from exclusively unvaccinated donors be established.

Ms Grey said the long-term effects of the vaccine were "untested" and accused doctors of refusing to provide an alternate donor service for ideological reasons.

So Sue Grey wanted the state to establish an alternative blood donation system for the unvaccinated, which would have taken considerable time and resources to get off the ground.

Meanwhile the babies life was being put in danger because of her entirely unfounded and ideologically driven fears. It's no wonder Grey's political “career” with the failed New Zealand Outdoors Party has been such a disaster!

But lawyers for the state blood service said the establishment of any direct donor service would have been a "slippery slope" and would "damage an excellent blood service".

Citing evidence from New Zealand's chief medical officer, Justice Gault ruled that there was "no scientific evidence there is any Covid-19 vaccine-related risk from blood donated" by vaccinated donors.

The case has become a vector for anti-vaccine activists in New Zealand with demonstrators - many of whom carried placards - gathering outside the court before the ruling was delivered on Wednesday.

The idiot anti-vaccine activists might be annoying, but what really pisses me off about all this is that Grey will likely retain her lawyers status, even though a complaint about similar misconduct was lodged over a year ago.


On Friday, RNZ reported:

Complaint lodged against lawyer and anti-vaccination campaigner Sue Grey 18 months ago unresolved

In May last year Jacinta, whose surname RNZ agreed not to use, lodged a complaint about disinformation being spread or hosted on Grey’s social media site.

Jacinta told Checkpoint it was irresponsible of Grey to promote her controversial views while acting as a lawyer.

…

Law professor at the University of Auckland, Mark Henaghan, told Checkpoint he believed proving Grey had acted unethically was not straightforward.

Henaghan said there was a difference between misconduct and misinformation.

He said a misconduct complaint would require the person to be aware that what they were saying was untrue.

“Misconduct is defined as... conduct that reasonable lawyers would think is either disgraceful or dishonourable, or it’s a wilful and reckless contravention of the rules,” he said.

If this more recent unethical behaviour isn’t considered misconduct, I don’t know what would be?

Clearly Grey has stepped over the bounds of common sense and decency here by convincing two vulnerable parents that blood from vaccinated donors is unsafe, which is entirely untrue. Grey would know that her argument is untrue, but is continuing to promote falsehoods because of the attention she receives. And Grey is receiving a lot of attention, with all the mainstream right wing media working hard to promote her argument as somehow being valid.

Despite the MSM trying to resurrect Grey’s profile, she has clearly breached the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act by actively encouraging these vulnerable parents to stop a surgery that was required to save their babies life. She failed to declare her glaringly obvious conflict of interest for starters; a conflict of interest that should preclude her from taking on any cases whereby vaccination is a part of proceedings.

Unless lawyers and their associates want their profession to have a bad name, they really need to ensure that arseholes like Sue Grey are permanently disbarred. But unfortunately the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal hardly ever strikes off wayward lawyers for their misconduct, mainly because it’s an organisation set up to protect lawyers. Let’s hope they make an exception in this case.

Young people must be allowed to vote

Let me just start out by saying that young people must be allowed to vote. Not because they are more enlightened than previous generations, but because the earlier people become voters, the more likely they will continue to participate in democracy.

We have a serious problem in New Zealand with low voter turnout. Many believe that there’s simply no point in voting, because politicians will always look after their own vested interests first. However when enough people vote for progressive change, then the status quo must change as well.

Today, the BBC reported:

 

New Zealand Supreme Court rules voting age of 18 is discriminatory

New Zealand's Supreme Court has ruled that the country's current voting age of 18 is discriminatory, meaning parliament must discuss whether it should be lowered.

The case was brought by campaign group Make It 16, which wants the voting age reduced to include 16 and 17 year olds.

There is no doubt that young people have the most to lose when it comes to governments dragging their feet over their ineffectual environmental policy. The same can be said for social policy, whereby both National and Labour are happy to tinker around the edges while Rome effectively burns.

Following the ruling, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she personally supported reducing the voting age to 16, but added that "it is not a matter simply for me or even the government, any change in electoral law of this nature requires 75% of parliamentarian support".

Not all parties support the lowering of the voting age.

The centre-right National party opposes the move, while the Labour party is yet to state whether it would support a change in voting age or not.

Of course the opposition are opposing any changes. They are after all playing to their core supporters, namely old rich people who are stuck in their deluded ways. Clearly National and ACT are ageist parties hell bent on repressing the young, particularly when we’re talking about young people from ethnic minorities.

In fact the news that the Supreme Court supported young people’s voting rights couldn’t have come at a worse time for National Party leader, Christopher Luxon. After proposing failed boot camps as a solution to ram raids, Luxon then got on another decrepit high horse to blame parents for their children not attending school.

 

Yesterday, Newshub reported:

Christopher Luxon takes aim at parents, 'culture of excuses' for truancy crisis, but Jacinda Ardern fires back

Luxon's pointing the finger at parents and has no time for excuses.

"You chose to have these kids, you have to wake up at 7am, get your kids to school at 8am," he said.

"You have now got subsidised free lunches, free breakfasts, subsidised period products, subsidised school uniforms.

"There is no excuses. What we have in New Zealand is a culture of excuses."

Last week, Luxon put principals on notice.

He told AM: "There is a mixed standard of leadership across our schools and across our principals that actually means they're not focussing as strongly on getting kids to school as they can."

Talk about a vote loser. While Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern sides with teachers, parents and young people, Luxon is doing all he can to alienate entire sectors of the communities we live in. Young people aren’t the boggy men that the National Party needs to divide and conquer. Instead they will be a catalyst for change to ensure humanities survival.

The sooner our politicians realise this and vote accordingly to give young people democratic parity the better.