Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Speaker 1: Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates.
Speaker 2: Of theists, Now.
Speaker 1: The Leyton Smith podcast Coward by news.
Speaker 3: Talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to podcasts two hundred and sixty one for October
Speaker 2: twenty three, twenty twenty four. Last week I read a
Speaker 2: couple of essays that were published in close proximity time wise,
Speaker 2: I mean, in different journals. One was by retired judge
Speaker 2: Anthony Willie, the second by Jeffrey Tucker from Brownstone Institute,
Speaker 2: and both were very good, and it occurred that they
Speaker 2: coupled well together. I did think of having both authors,
Speaker 2: but elected to stick with Judge Willie. He was the
Speaker 2: longer commentary anyway, by five pages or so. Now that
Speaker 2: decision was fortunate because Tony and I talked with ease
Speaker 2: for fifty minutes and could have gone on for another fifty.
Speaker 2: As he pointed out to me afterward, these two articles
Speaker 2: sink well together, and for me it's an example of
Speaker 2: what I was pointing out or trying to I think
Speaker 2: last week in the last podcast, which has to do
Speaker 2: with the increasing number of people who were writing voluminously
Speaker 2: in some cases and making a living well some are anyway,
Speaker 2: unless I forget that I've complained on more than one
Speaker 2: occasion about how much there is out there and how
Speaker 2: hard it is to get on top of it with
Speaker 2: so much choice. But I can think of worse now
Speaker 2: before we talk with Tony Willie two weeks today, fourteen
Speaker 2: days from now, and we'll be sitting in front of
Speaker 2: the TV watching the future of the world unfold. And
Speaker 2: I remember clearly when I was winding up the radio
Speaker 2: program at midday on election Day twenty sixteen, everyone around
Speaker 2: me was convinced that the Clinton woman would be the
Speaker 2: next president. My reaction was, don't get to two excited.
Speaker 2: It's not over, and Trump will win, I think, and
Speaker 2: the rest is history, and history is about to repeat itself.
Speaker 2: I think. In fact, at this point I have little
Speaker 2: to no doubt that it will be the case. But wait,
Speaker 2: Trump was supposed to win in twenty twenty, but the
Speaker 2: numbers for Biden swelled as the night wore on, and
Speaker 2: in some states, even breaking their own rules, closed down
Speaker 2: counting for the night for one reason or another, and
Speaker 2: the staff like a burst water Maine and the staff
Speaker 2: which wasn't affecting anything, and the staff was sent home.
Speaker 2: The votes for Biden magically appeared and he won the
Speaker 2: biggest vote count in history. Amazing. Now could that happen
Speaker 2: again for Kambala Harris? I don't think so. But when
Speaker 2: it comes to rearranging reality, the Democrats are second to none.
Speaker 2: So while anything can happen over the next two weeks,
Speaker 2: I'll declare a second term for Trump and I won't
Speaker 2: be surprised if it's a big margin, and I want
Speaker 2: to throw the word landslide in. I'll think about it
Speaker 2: and at the back end of the podcast to be
Speaker 2: a little more on the election and a bit of
Speaker 2: information with regard to aspects of the American Constitution and
Speaker 2: how better to understand it, because it's not easy actually
Speaker 2: to understand, as though in a moment Anthony Willie. Leverix
Speaker 2: is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Speaker 2: Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin.
Speaker 2: It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal
Speaker 2: decongestent action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it
Speaker 2: works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty
Speaker 2: four hours. Leverick is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose,
Speaker 2: deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Levericks is an
Speaker 2: antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next
Speaker 2: time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into
Speaker 2: the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v Rix
Speaker 2: Leverx and always read the label. Takes directed and if
Speaker 2: symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland Layton Smith.
Speaker 2: There was an advertisement when I was young, when you're
Speaker 2: on a good thing, stick to it. Retired judge Anthony
Speaker 2: Willie has guested on this podcast on numerous occasions. Why
Speaker 2: because when you're on a good thing, stick to it.
Speaker 2: And it's great to welcome you back, Anthony.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Leighton.
Speaker 2: So your most recent column, your most recent contra to
Speaker 2: the Discussion of things, almost knocked me out. Its length
Speaker 2: was superb. Everything that you said in it was applicable
Speaker 2: to what's going on and where it's headed. And my
Speaker 2: guess is that a lot of people will want a
Speaker 2: copy of this to refer to and to refer others
Speaker 2: to because it is on target called blowing in the
Speaker 2: wind Sir Elton John's beautiful lyrics aptly described the parlous
Speaker 2: position of the fragile candle of enlightenment and reason as
Speaker 2: it exists in today's world. Both are increasingly assailed by
Speaker 2: the winds of dogma, ignorance, and deliberate misinformation. What triggered
Speaker 2: you to put pen to paper or fingers to the keyboard.
Speaker 4: Well, curiously enough, it was the anniversary of the death
Speaker 4: of Princess Diana, which doesn't have anything much such relevant,
Speaker 4: except that it brought to mind Elton John's lyrics. And
Speaker 4: I was going to write thing about the text of
Speaker 4: what I did right, and I thought that that was
Speaker 4: a rap description of what's happening to all of the
Speaker 4: benefits of the enlightenment that we've for so long taken
Speaker 4: for granted.
Speaker 2: Well, I'd like to work our way through this through
Speaker 2: this article as closely as possible and at whatever speed
Speaker 2: you choose to deliver. But you start off essentially by
Speaker 2: pointing out that there is an insidious phenomenon invading society.
Speaker 4: What is it? Well, we've taken for granted for so long.
Speaker 4: Now the benefits that we acquired from this flowering of
Speaker 4: thought which occurred in the principle the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Speaker 4: And we've sat back and assumed that life will always
Speaker 4: be like that and our position is secure. But it's
Speaker 4: not so. We're surrounded with a growing tender see full
Speaker 4: of the old Marxist doctrines to take hold and doing
Speaker 4: so very successfully. And of course they're the antithesis of
Speaker 4: our way of life, which is based on all those
Speaker 4: things I mentioned in the article free speech, the rule
Speaker 4: of law, democracy, and so on. And it's something that's
Speaker 4: really of concern. We don't seem to be grasping that
Speaker 4: this is occurring in so many different facets of our society.
Speaker 4: But of course we had the classic example of the
Speaker 4: previous three years of the so called Labor Government, in
Speaker 4: which the Marxist philosophy was alive and well, led of
Speaker 4: course by somebody who wasn't about Marxist and had been
Speaker 4: the world president of a Marxist society. But we don't
Speaker 4: seem to really be alert to just how dangerous this
Speaker 4: is and what is happening.
Speaker 2: What is it that's preventing the continuation of not just
Speaker 2: the practice but the teaching of the advantages and what
Speaker 2: we are discussing actually delivers to society, to individuals, to organizations.
Speaker 2: It all really comes, I suppose, under the heading of
Speaker 2: one word freedom.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, and really that sums up what is happening,
Speaker 4: and it's the loss of freedom. And I give a
Speaker 4: few examples in my article in no particular order. But
Speaker 4: if you begin by subverting education so that children at
Speaker 4: school only learn what this part killer group in society
Speaker 4: want them to learn, and if they are told that
Speaker 4: their history is irrelevant and that where they came from
Speaker 4: is in New Zealand anyway is essentially bad m then
Speaker 4: it starts very early and it's almost impossible to displace
Speaker 4: some of this teaching as children grow up, because we
Speaker 4: all know the old Jesuit mantra, give us the child
Speaker 4: till there's seven, and I'll give you the man. And
Speaker 4: that's what's happening in education, or had been happening under
Speaker 4: the previous government. Fortunately that is now being rectified significantly
Speaker 4: by the present government, but it's going to take a
Speaker 4: very long time. And there is now a whole generation
Speaker 4: of young people who have been taught this stuff and
Speaker 4: believe it, and the story goes on. I mean we
Speaker 4: saw it during COVID, how medicine was politicized. Without going
Speaker 4: into detail, the so called pulput of truth dictated what
Speaker 4: we would do with our lives. We would be locked
Speaker 4: up and we would have to have if injections of
Speaker 4: a substance if we wanted to continue to live a
Speaker 4: relatively normal life and so on. And that's harks back
Speaker 4: to what you were saying about Ashley Bloomfield and the
Speaker 4: who and this sinister proposition that medicine is no longer
Speaker 4: the curing of the sick, it is now part of
Speaker 4: the national secure see complex which governs our lives.
Speaker 2: Well, I was going to leave that till later, but
Speaker 2: seeing that you've you've raised it. The article that that
Speaker 2: that that came from was by Rob McCulloch. It was
Speaker 2: on the podcast about six weeks ago. And is Sir
Speaker 2: Ashley Bloomfield arguing in the New Zealand Medical Journal that
Speaker 2: this nation should be turned into a police state for
Speaker 2: the next in brackets inevitable Rose bragget pandemic And I mean,
Speaker 2: let's ask us a question. But the direction that the
Speaker 2: article takes is is very obvious. Yes, and this this
Speaker 2: is a. I can only put it this way. This
Speaker 2: is an individual that caused chaos as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 2: in this in this country, or contributed to it greatly,
Speaker 2: and has for whatever reason been awarded the Knighthood for it,
Speaker 2: and then gone on to greater height of the World
Speaker 2: Health organization and is now attempting to expand what he
Speaker 2: first achieved here. Would that be.
Speaker 4: Careers, absolutely, and it wasn't really apparent from his public utterances.
Speaker 4: But looking back we know what was behind all this,
Speaker 4: and that was, as I just mentioned, utilizing what turned
Speaker 4: out to be a relatively unharmful German if you like,
Speaker 4: or whatever, measured in terms of the number of people
Speaker 4: who died, which were very few. Indeed, that was used
Speaker 4: as a front for closing down New Zealand society. It
Speaker 4: has never happened in the history of this country that
Speaker 4: people were locked up in their houses for their own good,
Speaker 4: the people had to take medicine for their own good
Speaker 4: and so on. And to think that that is now
Speaker 4: becoming a derigue in these international organizations is indeed very worrying.
Speaker 4: And of course the Americans have just said, no, we're
Speaker 4: not having a bar of that. We'll determine our own
Speaker 4: health policies. Thank you, But I'm not sure what our
Speaker 4: governments do about it. They haven't said yet.
Speaker 2: No, I suspect they're being blown in the direction that
Speaker 2: the Bloomfield would desire. And well, I hope I'm wrong,
Speaker 2: but I think I'm right. Anyway, let me go back
Speaker 2: to just to a bit of history, because this is
Speaker 2: part of what you were saying is affected kids. You're
Speaker 2: right after having listed the flowering of free thought and
Speaker 2: curiosity otherwise known as the Enlightenment, and listed all those
Speaker 2: things philosophy, law, democracy, medicine, education, freedom of expression, music,
Speaker 2: economics and technology, etc. All of which are underpinned by
Speaker 2: unhindered rational thought. That was the social contract Captain Hobson
Speaker 2: brought to these shows in eighteen forty. It remained the
Speaker 2: social norm since, but is now as much under threat
Speaker 2: here as it is throughout the Western world. The threats
Speaker 2: are numerous and growing, and they assail enlightened thought and
Speaker 2: practice on all sides. It begins with the degradation of
Speaker 2: our shared history. Do you think that those who are
Speaker 2: pushing the shared history are aware of what they're doing.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, they're aware that, to quote day Cart that I think,
Speaker 4: therefore I am, which was probably the mantra that was
Speaker 4: at the heart of the Enlightenment, because he said I think,
Speaker 4: therefore I am. Not what do I read therefore I am?
Speaker 4: Or not what do I listen to other people telling me?
Speaker 4: Therefore I am? He promoted rational thought, and that is
Speaker 4: the one strength that those who would upset and destabilize
Speaker 4: our way of life have to counter. For as long
Speaker 4: as people are free to think rather than just listen
Speaker 4: to what other people tell them, then they're going to
Speaker 4: get nowhere, These people who would break so much damage
Speaker 4: on society. So they do they begin by attacking the Enlightenment.
Speaker 2: Indeed, just talking about there was a well known philosopher
Speaker 2: I believe who wrote a book called I Drink Therefore
Speaker 2: I Am. It was a book on wine, of course,
Speaker 2: So you cover that by saying it's now fashionable at
Speaker 2: all levels of society to denigrate this process as the
Speaker 2: product of whiteness and the oppression which accompanied it. And
Speaker 2: you say, the Marxists are well aware of this crucial
Speaker 2: fact as they seek to replace history with lies which
Speaker 2: benefit the growth of the state to the detriment of
Speaker 2: the individual. Are we being across the board too easily
Speaker 2: seduced to comply with, to comply and even vote for
Speaker 2: this approach.
Speaker 4: Well, well, I think we have been, because we must
Speaker 4: be among the most complacent societies on the planet really
Speaker 4: when you look back to think of the strengths of
Speaker 4: our society and the things we came to rely on,
Speaker 4: our democracy and the rule of law and education and
Speaker 4: all that sort of stuff, and we just assumed that
Speaker 4: would go on forever. And when it was attacked as
Speaker 4: it was in the last three years of the so
Speaker 4: called Labor government, nobody seemed to well, very few people
Speaker 4: seem to notice, and that encouraged those who would replace
Speaker 4: it with something else to continue with the work. I
Speaker 4: don't think it's going to go on. I'm confident that
Speaker 4: with the new coalition government that we will reverse this,
Speaker 4: but it's going to take time and it's not going to.
Speaker 2: Be easy correct, and it will be thought, I believe
Speaker 2: by those in the education system who have had a
Speaker 2: contribution to driving it absolutely.
Speaker 4: But I've got a lot of confidence in the present
Speaker 4: Minister of Education and her deputy, yes David Seymour, that
Speaker 4: they will do they will do this. I'm quite confident.
Speaker 2: He's my legal member and I've never met her or
Speaker 2: spoken to her. It's probably time we got around you.
Speaker 2: So we covered the education. Then you hit on politicized
Speaker 2: medicine wherever possible, by introducing racial considerations into the availability
Speaker 2: of treatment and by supplanting the independence of the medical
Speaker 2: profession to best manage their patients by substituting state intervention.
Speaker 2: Can I just relate to you a little example. My doctor,
Speaker 2: my own doctor, rang me a few months ago, and
Speaker 2: he was distraught, and I wondered, what the hell is wrong?
Speaker 2: And it turned out that he'd just been dealing with
Speaker 2: the department because of an aged patient of his, a
Speaker 2: woman who needed certain assistance. But she didn't qualify on
Speaker 2: the age front, because if you were Marie, you were
Speaker 2: entitled to it in your fifties. She was seventy two,
Speaker 2: I believe, and she wasn't entitled to it. And he
Speaker 2: rang me, and really all he wanted to do was
Speaker 2: just talk to somebody and get it off his chest.
Speaker 2: And I saw, or heard, rather the desperation in his voice,
Speaker 2: which was which ran a parallel with what I've been
Speaker 2: told by other doctors, but not quite so emotionally as this,
Speaker 2: because there was nothing that he could do for the
Speaker 2: woman without the Health Department's contribution. Yes, so there we
Speaker 2: are politiciz medicine. Have you have you got anything else
Speaker 2: in mind besides what we went through in COVID.
Speaker 4: Well, yes, the push towards rationing medicine on the basis
Speaker 4: of ethnicity, now that is a essentially a political notion
Speaker 4: because it divides society and you divide and rule. That
Speaker 4: became the norm under the previous government. And indeed you
Speaker 4: ticked a box where you went along declaring what you're
Speaker 4: whether or not you had married ethnicity, and unfortunately that
Speaker 4: is still alive. And well, I mean, one is these
Speaker 4: stories of just recently on this week, I heard of
Speaker 4: a woman who went along to a surgery and the
Speaker 4: first question was what is your ethnicity? I can't, for
Speaker 4: the life of me now understand why any any doctor
Speaker 4: or nurse would be remotely interested in that, because the
Speaker 4: government has made it abundantly clear that that is no
Speaker 4: longer a relevant consideration. But it gives an indication of
Speaker 4: just how deep seated these things became, bearing in mind
Speaker 4: after only three years of indoctrination.
Speaker 2: Indeed, moving on to the seeking to destabilize the legal systems,
Speaker 2: as you feel, of course for most of your life.
Speaker 2: Is it and we've discussed it before, but is it
Speaker 2: better now, worse now, or still much in the same place.
Speaker 4: Well, latent, it's hard to know how to describe this now,
Speaker 4: but except to say it's incomparably worse. I suppose you
Speaker 4: saw Murial Newman. She conducts these poles. At the end
Speaker 4: of her series of article was on any given week,
Speaker 4: and one of them, one of the questions was have
Speaker 4: you any confidence in the judiciary? Ninety eight percent of
Speaker 4: the respondent said no, they have no confidence now in
Speaker 4: the judiciary. I mean that is a truly appalling statistic,
Speaker 4: because unless people believe that when things go wrong and
Speaker 4: they need to invoke the law, they can go along
Speaker 4: to a court and have a hearing before an impartial tribunal,
Speaker 4: well that opens the way to anarchy. Really, so people
Speaker 4: would instead of going along a court, will make their
Speaker 4: own arrangements. And we're back with you two and all
Speaker 4: that goes with that. This destabilization is now very apparent
Speaker 4: in the universities, in the law societies, and on the judiciary,
Speaker 4: and we have this concerted push to introduce notions of
Speaker 4: spiritual beliefs into the law called tea care, whatever that means,
Speaker 4: because if you look at the dictionary you'll get at
Speaker 4: least a dozen different meanings, so that the law which
Speaker 4: the judges then are expected to administer will no longer
Speaker 4: be knowable in advanced it will no longer be certain,
Speaker 4: and it will no longer be applicable to everybody who
Speaker 4: appears before them. Now that's something which of course goes
Speaker 4: in one ear and out the other for most people
Speaker 4: as they get on with their lives, you can't blame
Speaker 4: them until they want to invoke the law. And if
Speaker 4: this continues unchecked, we are going to be in serious
Speaker 4: trouble with that pillar of our way of life, that
Speaker 4: is the legal system and ry. I think there's every
Speaker 4: indication at the moment that the present Attorney General is
Speaker 4: deeply conscious of this, and my hope is that she
Speaker 4: will do all she can to ensure that the sort
Speaker 4: of people who are pointed to the judiciary at all
Speaker 4: levels are not subject to these temptations of imposing their
Speaker 4: own private thoughts and moras on the public. But it's
Speaker 4: a long process because these people are there for they
Speaker 4: could be there for twenty years, and that in that
Speaker 4: time can do a lot of damage. And that is
Speaker 4: why to preserve sorry to go on, but that is
Speaker 4: why to preserve the integrity of the legal system. We
Speaker 4: need legislation which will make it abundantly clear that tribal
Speaker 4: practices are not part of the common law of New Zealand.
Speaker 4: And that will stop certain members of our judiciary at
Speaker 4: the highest levels. It's one of your previous interviewees expanded upon.
Speaker 4: It'll stop this business of Oh, I think it would
Speaker 4: be a good idea if we gave try or society
Speaker 4: a bit of a leg up by introducing teaking are
Speaker 4: into the common law. It can't happen. If it does,
Speaker 4: we will not have a legal system.
Speaker 2: Well, if you don't have a legal system, you've got
Speaker 2: chaos exactly. Can you give me a warning, you know,
Speaker 2: enough time to sell the house and bolt.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well actually, actually, just looking at looking at your article,
Speaker 2: you finish up on the legal system with the socialists.
Speaker 2: It's an outcome necessary if existing social norms are to
Speaker 2: be destroyed, is your final sentence. And then I turned
Speaker 2: the page and read introduce chaos into the sovereign Parliament.
Speaker 4: Yes, well, Winston Peters has been drawing it tension to
Speaker 4: this recently. I mean for most people. They took again,
Speaker 4: they took their parliament for granted. They assume that it
Speaker 4: would be a place of relatively rational debate, where the
Speaker 4: members attempted to rely upon facts, and that they preserve
Speaker 4: the dignity of the place. I mean to look at
Speaker 4: a parliament on television now, it's so embarrassing. As Winston
Speaker 4: points out, people make no attempt to dressed respectfully. That's
Speaker 4: showing some respect for the institution they're in. They shout
Speaker 4: each other down.
Speaker 2: That's not unusual though on a global basis.
Speaker 4: No it's not, But it's big gaining impetus since the
Speaker 4: last elect or the previous election.
Speaker 2: For anybody who's not following it like you you are
Speaker 2: and watching parliament on a regular basis, has the abuse
Speaker 2: become more savage, Yes.
Speaker 4: It has, But it's become more irrational too.
Speaker 2: Well, they go hand in hand on it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, And that's the worry again. It's the flight
Speaker 4: of reason, and once that goes out the window, once
Speaker 4: people stop relying on rational thought, well we all know
Speaker 4: where it will end up.
Speaker 2: Well, the flight of reason is a is a wonderful
Speaker 2: little quote and it's applicable on a number of fronts.
Speaker 2: Subverting the common language. And this is an easy one,
Speaker 2: and it's the shortest one of the points that you
Speaker 2: go into for I think obvious reasons, because it's steering
Speaker 2: you in the face no matter where or what you do.
Speaker 4: Well, Yes, we have enjoyed the English language as our
Speaker 4: common language. Now that's just an accident of history. There's
Speaker 4: nothing particularly necessary or good about that, but it just
Speaker 4: so happens. We've got it, and for the last one
Speaker 4: hundred and forty odd years it's been our common language.
Speaker 4: But within the last ten years there's been this movement
Speaker 4: towards inventing a new language by using marry words to
Speaker 4: describe concepts which were utterly outside of their experience at
Speaker 4: the time their language was being developed. Now that's not
Speaker 4: to say that their language shouldn't be preserved by all means.
Speaker 4: It must be preserved, but you don't take it and
Speaker 4: then bastardize another language with words that have cannot have
Speaker 4: had any meaning at the time these particular words were
Speaker 4: first thought up. And as I think I've said to
Speaker 4: you before, my favorite is moto car m o t
Speaker 4: o ka. Now that that just illustrates the sort of
Speaker 4: thing that's going on, and to walk into a coffee
Speaker 4: shop and see a sign outside which says kof ee
Speaker 4: and in brackets underneath a noun and underneath that coffee.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just silly, really, and it's demeaning to
Speaker 4: the Mari language, which should be kept intact for those
Speaker 4: who want to learn it as it as it was
Speaker 4: in speaking, if they wish. But however it's happening.
Speaker 2: Subject of science, of course, as you say, is at
Speaker 2: the very heart of the Enlightenment, and I don't know
Speaker 2: anybody who would argue with that. The corruption of science
Speaker 2: is now widespread. For example, it is now widely accepted
Speaker 2: in increasingly influential circles that rivers are no longer nature's
Speaker 2: way of draining rainwater and snow melt from high places
Speaker 2: to the sea, but they have some spiritual quality which
Speaker 2: must be taken into account in planning and control of
Speaker 2: catchments and fresh water usage. I didn't mean to read
Speaker 2: all that, but once I started, I needed to anti science.
Speaker 2: You might call it in general, How does it well?
Speaker 2: I know of examples, and so I have a somewhat
Speaker 2: of a grasp on it. When it comes to professions
Speaker 2: like engineering, which is a science, there is an undermining
Speaker 2: of the basis of it to an extent that is
Speaker 2: unwarrantable and could see some dangerous things happen in buildings
Speaker 2: in the future. Mind you, we haven't been too good
Speaker 2: at adhering to strict build ology may would over the
Speaker 2: past few decades. But expand on that as how science
Speaker 2: is concerned, would you.
Speaker 4: Yes, well, I think the attitude of the Royal Society
Speaker 4: of New Zealand to that. I forget his name now,
Speaker 4: but he was an eminent scientist, and he also had
Speaker 4: qualifications of sympathetic involvement with the mary community. And he
Speaker 4: wrote an article in which he castigates in which he
Speaker 4: pointed out that they introduce the introduction of these sort
Speaker 4: of spiritual values as the equivalent of science and as
Speaker 4: a part of science, would only end up denigrating science,
Speaker 4: and it would put this country back economically and socially
Speaker 4: to the dark ages. Really, And I've always remembered when
Speaker 4: I was doing environment court cases, one of the judges
Speaker 4: coming to me and saying he had a problem that
Speaker 4: he was doing a case involving the Waikato River and
Speaker 4: a gentleman has turned up and said, well, you can't
Speaker 4: grant this because it would offend the Tannyfars, and he
Speaker 4: didn't quite know how to deal with that because he
Speaker 4: didn't quite know what they were or what their standing
Speaker 4: was in the proceedings inside. It just makes a nonsense
Speaker 4: of the whole thing. So it's happening, and again it's
Speaker 4: just something else that somehow the government and society has
Speaker 4: got to deal with.
Speaker 2: And it won't be it won't be simple. Talking of standing,
Speaker 2: the first time I heard that word being used in
Speaker 2: the sense that you are using it was with the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court in America who denied denied a hearing to
Speaker 2: somebody because they didn't have standing. So would it be possible,
Speaker 2: for instance, would it be legitimate for that judge who
Speaker 2: you just described to say simply, I'm sorry, but Tanaphars
Speaker 2: don't have standing, or any judge to say it Tanophars
Speaker 2: don't have standing.
Speaker 4: Yes, that's exactly what he did. Yes, these cases are
Speaker 4: concerned with provable facts, not miss well.
Speaker 2: That leaves me wondering whether the judge wasn't as bright
Speaker 2: as he should be or I'm brighter than I thought.
Speaker 4: A good judge.
Speaker 2: Look, there is there is. You've mentioned the Royal Society,
Speaker 2: the Engineers Society, whatever it's called, has fallen in down
Speaker 2: the same rabbit hole. Yes, and it's causing. It's causing
Speaker 2: in the lives and minds of a couple of people
Speaker 2: I know, some ridiculous situations.
Speaker 4: Yes. Yes, I've got a very close friend who's a
Speaker 4: retired civil engineer many years standing, who's had to tell
Speaker 4: his institute please stop sending me this publication monthly because
Speaker 4: I'm afraid I can't read most of the language is written,
Speaker 4: and very little of it's got to do anything to
Speaker 4: do with engineering, whether the bridge stays up or the
Speaker 4: sewerage system works.
Speaker 2: That's what i'm That's what I'm told by somebody who
Speaker 2: is who is at the top of the game.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Oh, it's happening, There's no question about it.
Speaker 2: Global warming is your is your next suggestion the subject
Speaker 2: of whether why did you include global warming?
Speaker 4: Because, as I said the article, for me, it's the
Speaker 4: poster child of the journey away from science and from
Speaker 4: it's the poster child of the journey away from days descartes.
Speaker 4: I think, therefore, I am because people who believe in
Speaker 4: it only believe, well they believe, which is a religious concept,
Speaker 4: but they only believe what they read or what other
Speaker 4: people tell them. People who question it do some they
Speaker 4: do their thinking, and then they look to the facts
Speaker 4: and what's provable and what's not. And the result is
Speaker 4: and it harks back to what we were talking about earlier.
Speaker 4: This is one of the new constraints on society and
Speaker 4: on free thought, that if you don't believe in global warming,
Speaker 4: then you are a danger and you are misinforming the public,
Speaker 4: and it's got to stop. And you'll recall the President
Speaker 4: Obama's climate za was a fellow John Kerry. I heard it.
Speaker 4: I sat and watched him say this, that he's deeply
Speaker 4: concerned about the effect of the First Amendment to the
Speaker 4: American Constitution, which of course ensured freedom of thought and expression,
Speaker 4: and he thought that that was a license for misinformation
Speaker 4: and it's got to stop. And he actually canvas ways
Speaker 4: in which the Senate and the House could engineer the
Speaker 4: repeal of the First Amendment. So global warming isn't just
Speaker 4: something that's interesting to commentate us. It has this lurking
Speaker 4: danger as well in terms of freedom of thought and
Speaker 4: freedom of expression. As I say, it's a religious concept.
Speaker 4: And I was appalled at the treatment given to Maureen Pure,
Speaker 4: the Member for the West Coast for National.
Speaker 3: Was disgusting, absolutely appalling, and she was hung out to
Speaker 3: dry because all she said was that she's waiting for
Speaker 3: the evidence on what caused the bad weather on the
Speaker 3: East coast.
Speaker 4: And that really alarms me that we have in the
Speaker 4: house a number of senior MPs who were quite unashamed
Speaker 4: of you. Tell you all I believe in global warming. Well,
Speaker 4: you can go along and believe in whatever you like,
Speaker 4: but let's get some facts.
Speaker 2: It's timey that I read early today an article which
Speaker 2: I don't have in front of me. I wasn't going
Speaker 2: to I wasn't going to utilize it. And it refers
Speaker 2: to the article refers to a new study that has
Speaker 2: just been released and there is no evidence of global
Speaker 2: warming since the nineteen seventies, in spite of it says,
Speaker 2: in spite of the so called records in Europe last year,
Speaker 2: this is all from memory, they say. You won't read this,
Speaker 2: of course in the mainstream media, but not just a report.
Speaker 2: It's a major study put together by a bunch of
Speaker 2: serious scientists.
Speaker 4: But that's the concern in this particular area, Lason, that
Speaker 4: how on earth any rational person can believe that a
Speaker 4: gas which surprises no point, not four percent of total
Speaker 4: atmospheric gases, and which is crucial for the continuation of
Speaker 4: life on the planet, could be causing the Earth's climate
Speaker 4: to change. And I have not the slightest doubt that
Speaker 4: the Earth's climate changes continually. And you've only got to
Speaker 4: look back through more recent history to see the freezing
Speaker 4: of the Thames and the medieval warming period and sun
Speaker 4: that's unexceptional when you think we're just a rock hurling
Speaker 4: around in space with a core that's molten rock, subject
Speaker 4: to all the outside influences and the elliptical all but
Speaker 4: and all that sort of stuff. But the people who
Speaker 4: believe in this that they're not interested in the facts.
Speaker 4: And that's where it comes back to the flight from
Speaker 4: the Enlightenment and reason. Once you depart from the facts,
Speaker 4: you're lost. You're at a swamp.
Speaker 2: Yes, not just in Washington. I actually I like to
Speaker 2: come back to that subject briefly. When we conclude one
Speaker 2: of my favorites is next the mainstream media take it away.
Speaker 4: Well, it's just a disgrace at the moment, isn't it.
Speaker 4: I mean examples they crop up every night on say
Speaker 4: TV en Z one news in a news bulletin which
Speaker 4: maybe comprises half an hour of so called news. To
Speaker 4: spend ten minutes dwelling upon some unfortunate young man who
Speaker 4: filled himself up with drugs and alcohol and fell off
Speaker 4: a balcony in Barcelona is to be utterly absurd when
Speaker 4: there are so many things going on that cry out
Speaker 4: for reporting and informing the public. And I'm not a
Speaker 4: bit surprised that the state broadcaster is in dire straits.
Speaker 4: Should it be solved, The trouble is, well, who would
Speaker 4: buy it? The trouble is what are you replace it with?
Speaker 4: Wouldn't it be better just to ensure that the board
Speaker 4: takes control of the thing and they only employ well,
Speaker 4: first of all, they have a code of conduct which
Speaker 4: requires them all to act impartially and fairly and so on,
Speaker 4: and need to only employ people who are capable of
Speaker 4: complying with that code.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a couple of things I'd suggest. First of all,
Speaker 2: in Australia, the ABC, where they have a much larger population,
Speaker 2: much much broader selection possibility of appointees. The ABC is
Speaker 2: run by the journalists. The news division is run by
Speaker 2: the journalists and not the not the board. They one
Speaker 2: or two have tried to make amendments and they fail
Speaker 2: because the staff believes that they own it. And so
Speaker 2: the situation here, of course is that we have a
Speaker 2: much more limited pool to choose people from it. I'm
Speaker 2: budding whether there would be anyone, if not enough, who
Speaker 2: would be game enough to put their lives on the line,
Speaker 2: I mean their professional lives.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, Well, I think if if it had a
Speaker 4: board that was sufficiently rigorous and kept close eye on,
Speaker 4: almost on a daily basis of what was big edit done,
Speaker 4: then these people could be called out. And I think
Speaker 4: human nature being what it is, they'd get the message
Speaker 4: if they want to keep a job and earn a living,
Speaker 4: and they would change their attitude to well, for example,
Speaker 4: they're reporting of politics in New Zealand, which is so
Speaker 4: one sided it's just a joke really.
Speaker 2: But what would be the what would be the case
Speaker 2: after the after the change government, after we change government?
Speaker 2: At an excellent to just revert back again absolutely, because
Speaker 2: there is no sorry, there is no we'll use a
Speaker 2: shipping term here, there is no solid draft on that ship.
Speaker 4: No no, and that's that's a risk that we do run.
Speaker 4: But as the previous labor lot showed, my word you
Speaker 4: can embed some stuff very very quickly, and hopefully this
Speaker 4: present coalition government is there long enough to embed the
Speaker 4: sort of thing we're talking about, so it becomes the norm.
Speaker 4: But it's pretty fragile here we are.
Speaker 2: Yeh. So freedom of association is you're the next on
Speaker 2: your list, and I think we've probably covered that reatably well.
Speaker 4: So democracy, well, I left that in the economy to
Speaker 4: the end, because if you're going to impose a sort
Speaker 4: of communist Marxist type government on a country, the thing
Speaker 4: you've got to do first is to destabilized democracy with
Speaker 4: a view to getting rid of it entirely. And when
Speaker 4: do you look around the world, the democracies, generally speaking
Speaker 4: are the prosperous and relatively settled nations and the other
Speaker 4: lot the communists are continually at odds with themselves with
Speaker 4: economies that have to be by the stolen from from
Speaker 4: the West or depend substantially on oil. So admitted to me,
Speaker 4: it's just plain as the nose really that we cannot
Speaker 4: afford to see our democracy placed in jeopardy at all.
Speaker 4: It's something that is that is essential that we fight
Speaker 4: for it.
Speaker 2: What bothers me about what you just said is that
Speaker 2: I think I'm fair insane. You need people with a
Speaker 2: certain degree of intelligence to take that on, and it
Speaker 2: seems to me that we might be losing most of them.
Speaker 2: If not, well, it will never be all of them,
Speaker 2: but most of them to overseas. I mean, we don't
Speaker 2: need to go into stories about people we know, including
Speaker 2: our own kids, who have who have not fled but
Speaker 2: don't plan to come back.
Speaker 4: M Yeah. That said later on, I still have a
Speaker 4: certain confidence in the so called common man, people who
Speaker 4: know nothing about any of this stuff. But it's the
Speaker 4: old pub test. You know that they know that there's
Speaker 4: something wrong with what's happening and that something needs doing
Speaker 4: about it. And I still think that there is a
Speaker 4: large catchment out there of people who, once they're alerted
Speaker 4: to what's going on, their own sense of common sense
Speaker 4: and fair play will kick in and they will start
Speaker 4: making noises about stopping some of these insidious sort of
Speaker 4: influences that we're subject to. It the moment.
Speaker 2: There is more to your article than we have covered,
Speaker 2: but I want to leave it, yeah, because it to me, Well,
Speaker 2: we'll explain explain where to get it shortly, but I
Speaker 2: want to I just want to cover a couple of
Speaker 2: other things headline the fatal flaw in artificial intelligence. If
Speaker 2: I asked you what it was, you'd give up the answer.
Speaker 2: The answer is it's got a question mark at the
Speaker 2: end of it, climate change. And I want to quote
Speaker 2: you a little of this. AI's role in amplifying dominant
Speaker 2: narratives will continue to stifle dissent, limit open debate, and
Speaker 2: impose restrictive controls on society. If we allow this to
Speaker 2: continue unchecked, AI will become a tool for shaping thought,
Speaker 2: controlling discourse, and eroding the very freedoms it was meant
Speaker 2: to empower. Would you find any fault with that?
Speaker 4: I couldn't agree more. I think part of the problem
Speaker 4: is that people like me anyway, have not the faintest
Speaker 4: idea what I actually is and what it what it
Speaker 4: actually does. Presumably it's where images and words are manufactured
Speaker 4: out of, SAIDA. I don't know, but I'm concerned about it. Yeah,
Speaker 4: I really am.
Speaker 2: Yes, it could be it could be controlled. So your
Speaker 2: article is I think something that should be studied in
Speaker 2: high school. At least I've did serious. It's encompassing to
Speaker 2: the point that it covers everything basically and logically and
Speaker 2: seriously and would cause far greater thought among students than
Speaker 2: anything that they're looking at.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I mean that, I mean that very very sincerely. Now,
Speaker 2: thank you Jeffrey Tucker, who I refer to quite frequently,
Speaker 2: the founder, apart from anything else, the founder of Brownstone Institute,
Speaker 2: which has become a center for information for a lot
Speaker 2: of people. Yes, Jeffrey Tucker wrote something a few days ago,
Speaker 2: and I thought it slotted so beautifully alongside your article
Speaker 2: that I wanted to touch on it. It's headed Globalism
Speaker 2: and freedom do not mix. And I'll quote you a
Speaker 2: little interesting question, why, after many, multiple decades of only
Speaker 2: localized migrant issues, most having to do with border wars
Speaker 2: or other disruptions, have so many nations at once dealt
Speaker 2: with floods of people exploiting broken migration systems. In other words,
Speaker 2: how did a local problem become a global problem so quickly?
Speaker 2: How did all border systems break at once? And then
Speaker 2: goes on and consider the problem before this one, we
Speaker 2: had a globalized response to the COVID crisis in most
Speaker 2: nations of the world. The policy response was eerily similar.
Speaker 2: There was masking, distancing closures, travel restrictions, and capacity limits.
Speaker 2: While big business was allowed to stay open. The same methods,
Speaker 2: which have no modern precedents, were attempted in all countries
Speaker 2: in the world except a few. Now we can relate
Speaker 2: to that. That's only the beginning, but we can relate
Speaker 2: to that in this country as much as anybody else
Speaker 2: can anywhere else on the planet. The question that the
Speaker 2: point that he raises grab my attention specifically because I
Speaker 2: asked this question of at least two interviewees on the
Speaker 2: podcast about the coincidence of the same approaches being taken
Speaker 2: in other countries as well as ours or ours as
Speaker 2: other countries, and what this copying was all about, and
Speaker 2: neither of them was happy to be agreeable with that.
Speaker 2: Just coincidence was the bottom line.
Speaker 4: I don't know about you, but I don't believe in going.
Speaker 2: That it's not of that nature. No, So the Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Tucker article is a clip on to yours. He goes
Speaker 2: on and covers numerous other aspects, specifically the World Health
Speaker 2: Organization and what's going on with that at the moment.
Speaker 2: Specifically with well, maybe i'll quote this. He talks about
Speaker 2: the nation state and I have a book called The
Speaker 2: End of the Nation State, and it was written in
Speaker 2: and published in nineteen ninety five, and it was determined
Speaker 2: that the nation state was over and was about to finish. Well,
Speaker 2: it hasn't, and it would be an interesting discussion to
Speaker 2: have separately about whether or not we are still moving
Speaker 2: of late in that direction, it says, all these years later,
Speaker 2: most people in most nations, the United States especially, believes
Speaker 2: that they should have a final say over the structure
Speaker 2: of the regime. This is the essence of the democrat ideal,
Speaker 2: and not as an end in itself, but as a
Speaker 2: guaranteur of freedom, which is the principle that drives the rest.
Speaker 2: Freedom is inseparable from citizen control of government.
Speaker 4: Would you agree with that absolutely? Will you really can't
Speaker 4: have one without the other.
Speaker 2: When that link and that relationship are shattered, freedom itself
Speaker 2: is gravely damaged. The world today is packed with wealthy
Speaker 2: institutions and individuals who stand and revolt against the ideas
Speaker 2: of freedom and democracy. They do not like the idea
Speaker 2: of geographically constrained states with zones of juridical power. They
Speaker 2: believe that they have a global mission and what to
Speaker 2: empower global institutions against the sovereignty of people living in
Speaker 2: nation states. Now that's all I want to quote. But
Speaker 2: he goes on and covers other things like disease, pandemic threats,
Speaker 2: climate change, etc. As methods of achieving that. Yep, this
Speaker 2: word juridical. Did I pronounce it rightly?
Speaker 4: Absolutely?
Speaker 5: It is?
Speaker 2: But it confused me. It confused me at first. I
Speaker 2: thought someone had made a mistake, a spelling mistake. But
Speaker 2: I hadn't come across it ever. And don't forget I
Speaker 2: did a couple of years of law twice.
Speaker 4: I only did one year twice.
Speaker 2: I think I think that spells itself out.
Speaker 4: It just means things that judges. Well, it's things that
Speaker 4: are decided in a judging way.
Speaker 2: Really, yes, But it's not commonly used, is it.
Speaker 4: No? No, it's too hard to pronounce.
Speaker 2: You got that right. So in wrapping this anything you'd
Speaker 2: like to say.
Speaker 4: Well, we were talking, well, just one thing we were
Speaker 4: talking as an indication of how far down the line
Speaker 4: we got in these anti democratic, anti freedom sort of
Speaker 4: tendencies under the previous governments. And that is David Seymour's referendum,
Speaker 4: which he wants on the Treaty principles. Well, we won't
Speaker 4: go into that, but what he's asking for is that
Speaker 4: the public decide the particular questions that he's raised. Whether
Speaker 4: they're right rise, it doesn't really matter. It's for the
Speaker 4: public to decide. And I was appalled to read Chris Finolasen,
Speaker 4: as a former attorney General, expressing the view that these
Speaker 4: things are far too difficult for the public to have
Speaker 4: any say in and they probably come up with the
Speaker 4: wrong answers. Now, that to me summarized very neatly a
Speaker 4: lot of what we've been talking about in these attacks
Speaker 4: on the on the freedom of expression and the democracy,
Speaker 4: and it just illustrates how far down the track we
Speaker 4: we we came before hopefully the the stop signs went up,
Speaker 4: but I live in Hope.
Speaker 2: Anymore.
Speaker 4: No, that's we could we could talk for hours later, but.
Speaker 2: Well we could talk for ours, but would you want
Speaker 2: to Tony?
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, all right, thanks Laton, good to talk.
Speaker 4: Bye bye.
Speaker 2: This is Producer here. We are in the mail room
Speaker 2: for two hundred and sixty one and haven't seen you
Speaker 2: all day, so it's nice that you put an appearance in.
Speaker 6: I know, actually it's really rather nice to be able
Speaker 6: to get into your studio stroke library now later because
Speaker 6: you've had a lot of building work going on in here,
Speaker 6: and it looks fabulous.
Speaker 2: I actually wasn't going to mention it, because once I start,
Speaker 2: I can't stop your.
Speaker 6: Library, your shelves, your new library coming together.
Speaker 2: I was introduced to a cabinet maker, cabinet maker who
Speaker 2: was a friend of a friend, and he came over
Speaker 2: and had to look at my wall and said, I
Speaker 2: can do that easily. I told him what I'd wanted.
Speaker 2: I can do that easily. And it wasn't easy to
Speaker 2: wait for because I talking about five weeks.
Speaker 6: All good things take time.
Speaker 2: Well, the point being you you made mention of the
Speaker 2: fact that you aren't you pleased it's taking time, because
Speaker 2: if he could do it the next day, maybe he
Speaker 2: wouldn't be so good. Words to that effect. But some
Speaker 2: of you, some of your logic that was actually.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: I bet you were. She'd done it ages ago now,
Speaker 6: But unfortunately you have twice as many books as as
Speaker 6: you have space for. But it now means that you'll
Speaker 6: be shoehorned out of this room of food once a day.
Speaker 4: I guess you're just.
Speaker 2: Living here anyway. It's a magnificent job. Takes up a
Speaker 2: whole wall floor to siling wall, to wall. Let me
Speaker 2: put it this way. I worked out by filling up
Speaker 2: one bay of twenty eight with books that I took
Speaker 2: to be an average, and it took twenty eight books. No,
Speaker 2: it took twenty six books, and there's twenty eight days
Speaker 2: work that out?
Speaker 6: What are you going to do with the rest of
Speaker 6: the books?
Speaker 2: Go on, match, wait and see.
Speaker 6: So why don't you let me start so later? Noel
Speaker 6: says Roger Partridge was great. As I recall, it was
Speaker 6: Helen Clark who decided to set up the Supreme Court
Speaker 6: as an alternative to the Privy Council in the UK.
Speaker 6: At the time it seemed to make sense. Having to
Speaker 6: travel halfway across the world to get ultimate justice seemed
Speaker 6: unnecessarily expensive. But that has But has that major cost
Speaker 6: now been passed on to taxpayers? Does anyone know how
Speaker 6: much it costs to run the Supreme Court with their
Speaker 6: near palatial headquarters in Wellington. One of the benefits of
Speaker 6: the Prevy Council was an objective judgment removed from local
Speaker 6: bias and flavor of the month local issues. Might we
Speaker 6: get almost as much separation by canning the Supreme Court
Speaker 6: and using Australia's highest court instead, and I'm looking forward
Speaker 6: to two six ' one. It blows me away that
Speaker 6: everyone didn't learn about photosynthesis at school and how CO
Speaker 6: two is essential for that process and ultimately for the
Speaker 6: existence of life on our planet.
Speaker 2: Why okay, so, why by the connection between two six
Speaker 2: one and photosynth? Was I going to do something this
Speaker 2: week that I haven't done? Brain fade could be? Recently,
Speaker 2: Solicitor General Uni Yougo seek KC released her prosecution guidelines
Speaker 2: which instructed prosecutors to treat Mari criminals and victims differently
Speaker 2: from those of non married descent. Imagine this from a
Speaker 2: King's council. This racist law would have taken effect on
Speaker 2: first January twenty twenty five if it wasn't for the
Speaker 2: Hobson's Pledge. Great work in publicizing the heck out of
Speaker 2: our judicial system's ideologically possession. Your podcast with Roger Partridge
Speaker 2: was a very timely reminder of the voracious appetite of
Speaker 2: New Zealand activist judges to overreach. The New Zealand legal
Speaker 2: system is a putrid swamp of predatory activist judges. Judge
Speaker 2: Anthony Willy echoed Roger's sentiments in his fantastic piece on
Speaker 2: enzcpr entitled Blowing in the Wind, where he warned of
Speaker 2: the increasing sun substitution of socialist values for social norms
Speaker 2: that we have taken for granted. He provided a long
Speaker 2: list of sins of the previous Labour government's ambitions, one
Speaker 2: of which included the destabilization of the New Zealand legal system.
Speaker 2: They did this by quote introducing concepts utterly incompatible to
Speaker 2: that system, such as the tribal cultural values, and seeking
Speaker 2: to elevate those values to the status of law. If
Speaker 2: allowed to continue, this will result in the common law
Speaker 2: no longer being certain, knowable in advance, and applicable to
Speaker 2: all Equally. It will lead to the judges departing from
Speaker 2: their traditional role of interpreting and applying the law, add
Speaker 2: instead deciding cases according to their personal beliefs and proclivities.
Speaker 2: I agree with Roger Partridge. The government needs to execute
Speaker 2: legislative intervention and stop judges like Una Yugosi KC before
Speaker 2: it's too late. Meanwhile, to sendra a dirn is.
Speaker 6: Dame Layden Hogi says, I have been a fan of
Speaker 6: yours through your one ZB years, listen to all your
Speaker 6: podcasts on my daily walks and remain eternally grateful for
Speaker 6: your voice of reason. I'm a seventy nine year old
Speaker 6: expat from the USA, having resided in New Zealand for
Speaker 6: the past fifty two years. I spent five years in
Speaker 6: the US Navy as a helicopter pilot during the Vietnam
Speaker 6: War era, having made two eight month cruises in the
Speaker 6: Gulf of Tonkin aboard the USS Constellation and the USS Enterprise.
Speaker 6: Our mission was to be on hand angel duty it's
Speaker 6: called in case of man overboard or plane crash, etc.
Speaker 6: So never had to face any actual combat. Anyway. I
Speaker 6: grew up believing that America stood for all things good,
Speaker 6: just and true, etc. Not so much now. And that's
Speaker 6: from HOGI.
Speaker 2: Can I just have a look at that?
Speaker 4: Please?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Hogi. I don't recall you ever writing before.
Speaker 2: You've been here for seventy nine now you've been here
Speaker 2: for past fifty two years. Where have you been?
Speaker 4: I've missed you.
Speaker 2: Now from Robin except for copying now from Robin your
Speaker 2: last letter this week. That means in two sixty that
Speaker 2: was the long one that I read when you departed,
Speaker 2: missus producer. Except for copying the except for copying the
Speaker 2: COVID pass. His experience is a duplicate of ours, and
Speaker 2: please put all your phones on silent. Sadly, though family
Speaker 2: had a different view from their parents in their seventies,
Speaker 2: we too had our medical supplies stopped at the border.
Speaker 2: I keep hoping the rules will be relaxed. Keep up
Speaker 2: the good work, Robin. I'd love to know how many
Speaker 2: people actually follow that, and then how many how many
Speaker 2: did get stuff nicked at the border, and are they
Speaker 2: due compensation in the light of the present.
Speaker 6: Knowledge, Laden Allison says I another great podcast. I wish
Speaker 6: we could hear more from the experiences of mister long letter,
Speaker 6: especially how step by step he got his exemption. I
Speaker 6: am on his side. The foolishness and culpable ignorance of
Speaker 6: those days deserved not to be respected. And think, she says,
Speaker 6: thank you so much, Allison, thank you?
Speaker 2: Yes indeed, now finally from Brett neo racists, does such
Speaker 2: a word encapsulate the New Zealand situation or fall short?
Speaker 2: Race needs to be removed period. At the end of
Speaker 2: the day, we are just people. It is not complicated.
Speaker 2: Have a great day, warm regards Brett. Now is that
Speaker 2: as a cover note to send me an article by
Speaker 2: Graham Reeves. Graham reeves the Treaty Principle's Bill or the
Speaker 2: Constitutional Principle's Bill or neither two and a half pages.
Speaker 2: Graham is a lawyer and the former National MP. So
Speaker 2: I'll do the same thing as I did last week
Speaker 2: and not hold you up because I know you've sorry. Later,
Speaker 2: You've got people pending.
Speaker 6: Isn't that terrible?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 6: The jolly phones get in every every every area of
Speaker 6: your life, every nook and creny.
Speaker 2: They just anyway, I'll let you depart and I'll knock
Speaker 2: this off. Thanks later, my pleasure. So to repeat Graham
Speaker 2: reeves the Treaty Principle's Bill or the Constitutional Principle's Bill
Speaker 2: or neither begins. In his blog of fourteen October twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four, Professor Robert mccalluch in, discussing the Treaty Principle's Bill,
Speaker 2: suggested that the bill be rename the Constitutional Principle's Bill.
Speaker 2: He suggested that it should map out the fundamental value
Speaker 2: all kiwis hold deer, avoiding the futile treaty interpretation and
Speaker 2: mind reading game. If only it were that simple. New
Speaker 2: Zealand already has a well developed set of constitutional principles
Speaker 2: which have been formulated over a period of about nine
Speaker 2: hundred years, starting with the Magnaicata in twelve fifteen, the
Speaker 2: Bill of Rights Act in sixteen eighty eight, the New
Speaker 2: Zealand Constitution Act eighteen fifty two, the Bill of Rights
Speaker 2: Act nineteen ninety and the Human Rights Act nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 2: all of which have contributed to New Zealand being the
Speaker 2: oldest continuous successful democracy in the world. Put simply, the
Speaker 2: combination of the above enactments established the three pillars of
Speaker 2: a democratic system of governance. Firstly, the disbursement of power
Speaker 2: from an authoritarian head of state, including the separation of
Speaker 2: the church from the state that is, a secular society
Speaker 2: and not a sectarian society, to the elected representatives of
Speaker 2: the people. Second, the establishment of the rule of law,
Speaker 2: including both the civil law and the Criminal's Code, and
Speaker 2: most importantly, the creation of protection of private property rights,
Speaker 2: which provides a foundation for a capitalist economy. And thirdly,
Speaker 2: the equality of all citizens under the law. Under this system,
Speaker 2: parliament is the supreme law making agency, receiving its mandate
Speaker 2: from the people in free and fair general elections. What
Speaker 2: has muddy the waters was not the signing of a
Speaker 2: very simple Treaty of Waitangi document in eighteen forty, but
Speaker 2: the subsequent introduction into New Zealand legislation of references to
Speaker 2: the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles since the passing
Speaker 2: of the Waitangi Tribunal Act nineteen seventy five, and the tortured,
Speaker 2: the tortured attempts to articulate the principles of that very
Speaker 2: simple document. The situation was further exacerbated in nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: six by the Land's Case, which he arose from a
Speaker 2: provision in the State Owned Enterprises Act of nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: six which required the Crown to register memorials against titles
Speaker 2: owned by the Crown being transferred to the new SOE
Speaker 2: entities to protect those assets for future treaty settlements. Somewhat Ambitiously,
Speaker 2: Justice Robin Cook took it upon himself to indulge in
Speaker 2: some obit dicta reflecting his views on the meaning of
Speaker 2: the treaty principles. However misguided he may have been, he
Speaker 2: did not for one moment suggest in the landscase and
Speaker 2: in the subsequent Cold Case, and in his extra judicial
Speaker 2: musings in Roderua in nineteen ninety that the treaty or
Speaker 2: its principles created an equal partnership between MARI and Crown.
Speaker 2: He made it clear that the right to govern remained
Speaker 2: firmly with the elected part of it of New Zealand.
Speaker 2: A more recent and interesting development took place on the
Speaker 2: morning of fifteen October on talkback z B the Prime
Speaker 2: Minister of New Zealand, when referring to the Solicitor General's
Speaker 2: guidelines for prosecutors in which mary were to be given
Speaker 2: preferential treatment to avoid convictions under the Criminal Code, stated
Speaker 2: that the law should be color blind. Color blindness is
Speaker 2: consistent with the constitutional framework referred to above. Color Blindness
Speaker 2: is the theme of the recently published Colman Hughes book
Speaker 2: The End of Race Politics, Arguments for a Colored America.
Speaker 2: Hughes coins a new category of actors in the racial narrative,
Speaker 2: the neo racist, to be distinguished from the anti racist.
Speaker 2: He writes that the neo racism narrative demands that we
Speaker 2: implement policies that rebalance the way that resources are distributed.
Speaker 2: Wherever possible, we need to give people of color preferential treatment.
Speaker 2: This is the only way for our society to move
Speaker 2: beyond its checkered racial past and to defeat white supremacy. Hughes'
Speaker 2: response to what he calls this seductive narrative is as follows.
Speaker 2: It depends on several harmful myths and fallacies, including the
Speaker 2: disparity fallacy, the myth of undoing the past, and the
Speaker 2: racial ad hominin, which is the most pernicious in that
Speaker 2: it states that you can dismiss any claims about race
Speaker 2: and racism that white people make simply because they're white.
Speaker 2: He asserts that neo racists don't want racial peace, but
Speaker 2: endless ideological war. When we see neo racism for what
Speaker 2: it is, racism in anti racist clothing, we see why
Speaker 2: neo racists fail to support colorblind policies that would eliminate racism,
Speaker 2: and why they reject the colorblind principles that motivated the
Speaker 2: civil rights movement. While New Zealand's journey is different to
Speaker 2: the American journey, I contend, writes the author that we
Speaker 2: can see the behaviors referred to by Hughes exhibited by
Speaker 2: the Waitangi Tribunal and the Mari and other activists who
Speaker 2: have vested interests in keeping the racist narrative alive. They
Speaker 2: are the neo racists. The question is, then, how we
Speaker 2: as a nation move forward as a united country where
Speaker 2: rights and obligations are not determined by race but by citizenship,
Speaker 2: and in accordance with our constitutional heritage, where all of
Speaker 2: the rights and obligations afforded us as citizens of a free,
Speaker 2: democratic society as referred to above, are not adulterated by
Speaker 2: the neo racist agenda. Is it a concise statement of
Speaker 2: the principles of the treaty principles or is it simply
Speaker 2: that Parliament legislates the removal of all reference to the
Speaker 2: Treaty and its principles to firmly establish that all of
Speaker 2: the citizens of this country are equal under the law.
Speaker 2: If we don't and continue to try to solve socioeconomic
Speaker 2: disparities purely on race, not need, then we are, in
Speaker 2: my opinion, on a slippery slope. Well, there's a few
Speaker 2: people that filled there's more than one slippery slope around
Speaker 2: at the moment. But from Graham Reeves, lawyer and former
Speaker 2: National MP, that is an opinion worth considering. Quite frankly,
Speaker 2: I think a second hearing might be worthwhile. Winded back,
Speaker 2: Layton Smith now. Finally, in the mail room, I suggested
Speaker 2: that Hogy, the American New Zealander who'd lived here for
Speaker 2: over fifty years, had not written before. I was wrong.
Speaker 2: I discovered by doing a dig that once before. He
Speaker 2: sent me a three minute video. I think it was
Speaker 2: earlier this year, and I've got to play it. It
Speaker 2: explains the difference between the US and New Zealand, the
Speaker 2: difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. And this
Speaker 2: is a byproduct why I think so highly of the
Speaker 2: US Constitution. HOGI appreciate it, thank you, and here it is.
Speaker 5: A democracy is a political system in which the people, periodically,
Speaker 5: by a majority vote at the polls, select their rulers.
Speaker 5: The rulers then have absolute power to make whatever laws
Speaker 5: they please by a majority vote among themselves. In a
Speaker 5: constitutional republic, the people, also by a majority vote at
Speaker 5: the polls, select rulers who make laws by a majority
Speaker 5: vote among themselves. But the rulers cannot make any laws
Speaker 5: they please because the constitutions severely restricts their law making power.
Speaker 5: The ideal of a democracy is universal equality. The ideal
Speaker 5: of a constitutional republic is individual liberty. In this century,
Speaker 5: great strides have been made toward the goal of subverting
Speaker 5: our republic and transforming it into a democracy. The foremost
Speaker 5: tactic of the subverters is subversion of language. By calling
Speaker 5: America a democracy until people thoughtlessly accept and use the
Speaker 5: term totalitarians have obscured the real meaning of American principles
Speaker 5: of government. Writers of the Constitution were anxious to safeguard
Speaker 5: liberty against dictatorship monarchy they called it, but their chief
Speaker 5: anxiety was to protect the country against democracy. Edmund Randall,
Speaker 5: delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Virginia, said the general
Speaker 5: object that the Convention was to provide a cure for
Speaker 5: the follies and fury of democracy. Elbridge Gary and Roger Sherman,
Speaker 5: delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Constitutional Convention to
Speaker 5: create a system to eliminate the evils that flow from
Speaker 5: the excess of democracy. Alexander Hamilton, delegate from New York, said,
Speaker 5: we are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is
Speaker 5: not found in democracy. If we incline too much to democracy,
Speaker 5: we shall soon shoot into a monarchy. John Adams, one
Speaker 5: of the giants of the American Revolutionary period, said democracy
Speaker 5: will end. They all contend with all endeavor to pull
Speaker 5: down all, and when, by chance it happens to get
Speaker 5: the upper hand for a short time, democracy will be revengeful, bloody,
Speaker 5: and cruel. America was founded not as a democracy, but
Speaker 5: as a constitutional republic. We pledge allegiance to the republic
Speaker 5: by which our flag stands, not to a democracy. The
Speaker 5: Constitution requires a republican farm of government for all states,
Speaker 5: but does not mention democracy, and neither does the Declaration
Speaker 5: of Independence or the Bill of Rights. Foeman ask him
Speaker 5: what kind of government the Convention had given America, and
Speaker 5: Franklin replied.
Speaker 2: A republic, if you can keep it.
Speaker 5: Very old and very wise. Franklin saw through the mists
Speaker 5: of time to the day when Americans might trade their
Speaker 5: freedom in a constitutional republic for the promise of government
Speaker 5: guaranteed equality and security in a democracy, and beyond that,
Speaker 5: to the day when democracy inevitably degenerates into dictatorship, guaranteeing
Speaker 5: nothing but poverty and serfdom for the people that robs
Speaker 5: and rules.
Speaker 2: Now, if you like me, you'll have to play that
Speaker 2: back once or twice to get the full gist of it.
Speaker 2: I did, and I'll probably do it again. But that
Speaker 2: will take us out for podcasts number two hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty one next week. There is another aspect of the
Speaker 2: US Constitution that I think is very important before we
Speaker 2: before we get to it in a fortnight's time. If
Speaker 2: you would like to correspond on any matter of it,
Speaker 2: all doesn't matter, Latent at newstalks ab dot co dot
Speaker 2: nz or Carolyn at newstalks ab dot co dot nz.
Speaker 2: We shall be back with podcasts two hundred and sixty
Speaker 2: two in a few days. Until then, as always, thank
Speaker 2: you for listening and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from News Talks B Listen live
Speaker 1: on air or online, and keep our shows with you
Speaker 1: wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio