Jacinda suggests a good idea- ignore the Royal Commission Report

Its not often that NZ’s IUSY trained PM comes up with a good suggestion. However she did so during a Newshub interview this morning, and that was the question “Should we ignore the Royal Commission Report?”

Illustration from Royal Commission Report

Of course we should, because the report is a disgustingly draconian attack on NZ’s traditional freedoms and way of life and far more effective of change than even the savagely oppressive Carbon Commission Report.

Its cooler times now. The report should be subject to a review by a panel of free speech and constitutional law experts, with a view to examining how many times its premises and recommendations breach our Bill of Rights. Including how it treads all over our rights not to be spied upon, our rights to communicate and travel freely, and of course our right to free speech. Even a layman could assess that these breaches would number in the hundreds.

In the video below, Jacinda Ardern tries to justify her draconian Stasi style changes to law as being necessary to “protect” religion. In fact NZ has existed for almost two centuries without such laws. What has changed recently? Due to a politically motivated but eternally unexplained obsession with diversity, and an accelerated immigration process, we suddenly have the influence of the Islamic religion and its accompanying socio/political ideas to deal with.

Why are we listening to this group, which manifests itself as the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ? (FIANZ, see attachments below) Because those calling to attack our traditional freedoms claim it is justified on the basis of the Christchurch massacre, and preventing a similar attack in the future.

They’re wrong. In fact if you study the report, in all its biases and its trite emotion driven recommendations and conclusions, it actually contradicts itself by admitting the Christchurch attack was not heralded by hate speech but came completely out of the blue. Some relevant quotes from the report-

  • The individual had no close friends and largely avoided social situations and, in that sense, he was socially isolated.
  • The only information that directly referred to the terrorist attack was an email the individual sent to the Parliamentary Service (as well as politicians, media outlets and individual journalists) just eight minutes before the terrorist attack began.
  • The fact the individual was not detected was not in itself an intelligence failure. …we find that the concentration of resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism is not why the individual’s planning and preparation for his terrorist attack was not detected.
  • Given the operational security that the individual maintained, the legislative authorizing environment in which the counter-terrorism effort operates and the limited capability and capacity of the counter-terrorism agencies, there was no plausible way he could have been detected except by chance.

The whole theme of the report is that diversity is good and all argument against this concept should be silenced and punished. Which again is self defeating. Punishing people for expressing views that counter the govt or a popular narrative does not enhance social cohesion. In fact it achieves the opposite.

Federation of Islamic Institutions of NZ Submission

The report says “having a society that is cohesive, inclusive and embraces diversity is a good in itself”. That is of course a matter of opinion, but the irony is we had a cohesive society before the political narrative and actuality of “diversity ” was thrust upon us in a manner that gave us no say in the matter.

Finally, the report opines “societies that are polarized around political, social, cultural, environmental, economic, ethnic or religious differences will more likely see radicalizing ideologies develop and flourish”. That of course is true, however it is also obviously truthful that the proposed law changes will not meet these outcomes, but actually create more of the polarization and radicalization that its authors seek to avoid.

The report is a total capitulation to the wishes of FIANZ. Wrong both morally and practically, it is draconian and oppressive and its needs to be reviewed in line with the suggestions above, and then thrown in the garbage bin and never ever be seen again.

We don’t need the report. We don’t need its recommendations. The cowardly disgusting attack that occurred in Christchurch was as the report admits an aberrational act that could only have been stopped by good luck. Therefore the changes the report recommends are totally unnecessary. As said above, it is an exercise in failed logic and it repudiates its own conclusions.

The report authors- Jacqui Caine and Judge Sir William Young

We are free people, and we will remain free people. We already have legislation dealing with incitement to violence, for all contingencies. Jacinda Ardern, the Labour party and FIANZ can take this medieval age tyranny disguised as care and compassion and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

Royal Commission Report and FIANZ submission attached (PDF) volume one volume two volume three volume four (recommendations) FIANZ submission


  • Salacious Crumb

    I shared the feelings of many New Zealanders of grief and revulsion at Brenton Tarrant’s actions and the
    pain he inflicted on so many innocent people. I doubt anything will ever come close to the harm to so many this criminal perpetuated on our country and its citizens. Nothing however will justify this draconian response from Ardern and her socialist cabal. My conclusion was also that this was a deranged criminal act after reading his manifesto prior to its banning (which there was no justification for). Nothing in Tarrant’s manifesto suggested anything other than the nihilistic ramblings of a maladjusted imbecile. Regarding genuine hate; it’s essential to give those who represent ideology abhorrent to us the platform to espouse their views; it’s the only way to hear and counter them. Afterall, without a liberal democracy underpinned by absolute freedom of expression, those espousing Marxist/Socialist doctrine (like Ardern et al) would have been shut down decades ago after the excesses of their repulsive ideology in the 20th century.

    Q. Who gets to decide what is deemed “hate speech”
    A. The people you least want to.


    • The answer to who gets to decide what is hate speech is easily answered- Those who rule over you decide. Showing how this law so totally desecrates our systems of justice and democracy.

      Agree with your comments on the shooter. The media and the state are endlessly striving to portray him as a “right winger” because its a binary description that suits their sinister objectives. “Right bad- left good”.

      The nonsense report states- “His life experiences appear to have fuelled resentment and he became radicalised, forming extreme right-wing views about people he considered a threat”.

      There is no evidence the shooter was a right winger. This is an entirely false claim. As you say, he had no determinate political philosophy, and if you must say he had one, with his admiration for the big powerful monolithic state of communist China, would be more left than right.

      It also perpetuates the outright lie of political convenience, (in yet another attempt to establish a binary conflict), that Islam is a race. It is not. It is a socio/ political system of belief that embraces all races.

      BTW, its worth watching the video to see Ardern’s hideous and completely unnecessary facial contortions. She’s bad enough usually, but this time…. Must be a treasure trove for body language experts.


  • When the news about the unfolding massacre broke on that terrible Friday I remarked to my friend, after expressing my disbelief and utter horror at what was happening, “I bet Cindy can’t believe her luck at the timing of this”. Because, around that time her star-power with the left-wingers was definitely waning,Then,,,,,wammo. A perfect storm for her. On went the head scarf and copious amounts of mourning make-up and, along with an enormous entourage of camera-baring media, off down to Christchurch she scarpered; clearly she couldn’t get there fast enough! Instantly, her star-power rose to unheard-of heights here, and internationally. So gross!!!


    • Yes, she squeezed every drop of publicity from the event she could, and in doing so put the rest of NZ, the huge majority of law abiding citizens who have never expressed a modicum of hate towards anyone to the sword of her own political ambition.

      However she is only permitted to do all this because those same people she has maligned continue to vote for her, and many inexplicably agree that the most free, advanced and democratic society the world has ever seen is an evil racist quagmire.

      I say that if we don’t stand for our own culture and our own civilisation, but instead meekly allow it to be disparaged and slandered by foreigners who came here seeking refuge from their own dysfunctional societies, then what the hell do we stand for. It disgusts me to see people allow Jacinda and her comrades and a bunch of foreigners from some near stone age sub-culture try to force us to our knees and apologise for our own society and a crime we had nothing to do with.

      We do not want their barbarian sub-culture to prevail in NZ. They come here, they value and are thankful for the freedom and the civil society they have inherited, and they leave that totalitarian tyrannical sub-culture BS behind.