🤷That is why we the people of Aotearoa & the global community have to seek out sources & elevate alternative sources of information because "mainstream media" is actually NOT "mainstream" anymore⁉️
Thank you Tui. This is quite sinister, but fully expected action from those driving the fools in parliament.
New section 78AAA of NZ’s Crimes (Countering Foreign Inteference) Amendment Bill creates a new offence where a person: knows, or ought to know, they are acting for a foreign power, and acts in a covert, deceptive, coercive, or corruptive manner, and intends to, or is aware that they are likely to, harm specific New Zealand interests or are reckless as to whether their conduct harms New Zealand interests.
It logically follows that our parliament following the Atlas agenda is committing an offence.
😱 Absolutely Police should monitor protests & intervene against INDIVIDUALS using violence & intimidation, even if only to remove them from the scene to protect others present (rather than standing by & watching thugs push down librarians & teenagers 🤷) . But they should in no way decide who can and can't protest absent a Court Order restricting where certain individuals are allowed to go 🤔 (it would be wonderful if citizens could bring civil suit & have the EFTPOStle Brian Tamaki banned from being in a group of more than 5 people in public 😁, as well as those who have engaged in assaulting librarians & terrorising infants ⁉️) IF we didn't already know that the govt of the day can (& does) affect policing decisions & policies, I would be less alarmed, but there should be no LEGAL leeway to allow for biased decisions around who should & shouldn't be allowed to protest, and WHAT they are allowed to protest about 🤬
Sorry about commenting here, can't find another way to get in touch with you. Wanted to let you know that Facebook have removed two posts of mine in the past few days, both of them where I'd shared one of your FB posts. The first is your post dated 16 Feb 2024, where you start out saying "Who's Helping Destiny Church? After Tamaki's people assaulted...", the other I don't have a timestamp for your post, but it was the one on 17 Feb 2025 (I think, that's the day I shared it), where you had the video showing the assault on the stairs in the library. In both cases, they say the posts go against their Community Standards on spam; I've asked for a review in each case. I use the same profile picture there as here, if you want to send me a message via FB, but I don't expect to hear from you just because, so don't feel you have to respond. Wanted you to know what was happening, is all. :-)
That’s so kind of you to let me know. Thank you. Facebook also removed my destiny church post. These platforms will always be increasingly reliable so let’s see how it all goes
Oh dear, I think I may get my hair pulled for this post.
On the IPCA report: My concern is not about the report, only what the govt might do with an opportunity to clamp down on protest.
I’m doing my best to read: Thematic Review: The Policing of Public Protests in New Zealand on the IPCA.govt.nz site. It’s a very interesting, thoughtful report and I can’t object to it (as far as I’ve got with it, jeepers it’s long).
Please, anybody, correct me if I’m wrong. However, nothing whatever in it suggests any call for mandatory permits for protests or any penalties for not getting one. It argues against these. It calls for voluntary notification to Local Authorities and Police, not as a legal requirement, and even says that if people don’t get them, they will try to protect the protesters’ right to protest safely anyway.
I’m sorry, the Council for Civil Liberties are great, but I honestly can’t believe that they have read the report.
It calls for organisers to set up liaison so that e.g. police can staff up (not to have to call staff out on overtime rates). So that risk management can happen, dangers can be mitigated in advance, that you agree to try to control your crowd (e.g. by discouraging vandalism, using loudhailers to connect on the day), that some traffic management can happen.
After all, the purpose of a protest is to make a point, not to break people’s arms, rip out mailboxes, piss off the whole community and stop people getting to hospital or the airport.
And from my own experience (Amnesty, etc), to do a big public protest with a police escort rolling in front and behind as though you are royalty, is truly amazing. And this has happened, in NZ, in the UK too.
Background to the report starts with the 2022 Parliament occupation, where police felt bewildered and conflicted about how to handle it, and the Posie Parker rally in March 2023 where various folks got injured, and while police seemed to do their best, they were at sea. And it criticises over-reaction by police around Israel and Gaza protests, and is scornful about some police efforts to defend this.
Okay, if one views the whole notion of relating with the police as trucking with the enemy who want to stamp out your right to protest, then obviously there’s no discussion to be had. If we see police as the Pigs, as we thought 50 years ago, then so be it.
But read the report. The words ‘right to protest’, ‘protecting the right to protest’, ‘legitimate right to protest’ are all over it and firmly defended. The Bill of Rights Act is mentioned 50 times, plus the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and more, entirely on the right to protest.
Hey, you need a permit to busk in Auckland! Why not a simple notification to set up some liaison 21 days in advance if you’re bringing 10,000 people into the city? And nothing wrong with notification, providing of course you actually accept that you could in fact collaborate with police.
The report wants legislation against picketing an individual’s home. Could be reasonable. Wants more police training in how to respond in these situations to prioritise human rights - what this means. Wants better risk evaluation - - e.g. if a neo-Nazi group has a rally, this is a likely explosion. The ability to advise folks that public safety is at threat, or if they go ahead (because of the right to rally, etc), then how to manage this. It asks a lot of questions about moral conflict in such cases.
The actual police response to the report is defensive, btw. ‘Our boys were right to shove protestors on Israel and Gaza around for their own safety’. And who knows how many individual police have neo-Nazi sympathies and will rough up protesters. Hopefully that is where the IPCA come in.
It’s still a concern though. Not in itself, but what is the government going to come up with in response? Misinform the public that the police see public protests as dangerous, so they have to be banned? We know what is in the playbook agenda.
But this couldn’t be more different from what this report recommends.
PS - to be fair, just realised that the police were shoving pro-Israel protesters around, not pro-Palestinian ones. Minor point but interesting. 'For their own safety', they said.
PPS ironic that the report's recommendations could even lead to a more collaborative relationship between police and community on protesting and create a less polarised perception. Hope the baby isn't thrown out with bathwater. It's the IPCA's fault. Nobody except this idiot is going to read 156 page reports.
Susie, I haven't looked in the report in detail but was reflecting on your comment today.
And for me what's significant is a few factors:
1. The clear and present worldwide trend to start criminalizing protests - indisputable where even 70-80 year olds are going to jail for peaceful protest or planning
2. Like all things, when it's presented the pretext is positive, but the track record of what we're seeing - including the Regulatory Standards Bill, the Treaty Principles Bill, the emergency housing and social housing approach, the Health NZ lies etc. - all adds up to we have a government which is aligned to the Atlas Network playbook and does not appear congruent with social goals - or indeed genuine democracy.
(Genuine democracy involves informing people and giving them a choice - not lying or couching things in positive language while harming....)
3. Police co-operation IS important - and indeed the TPB Hikoi was strongly co-ordinated with police.
But it's the pre-approval element can be manipulated.
As you say "our real concern is the govt" and as we can see in the Destiny Church case, the police work for them foremost it appears...
I tracked a few of the links including to the State Department list of banned publications. At its top was The Economist. Though I no longer subscribe I did for 30 years. Its position on economics was distinctly right of centre.
I agree. Conservatism is a respectable political position and its true adherents are open to debate. The alt-right are indistinguishable from fascism. Truth and logic are irrelevant to them. Our world is in very deep trouble.
This is not the world I want for my children and grandchildren. I will protest for as long as I am able.
What we seem to be going through is a bit like a corrupted grief / change cycle - experiencing disbelief and denial, anger and frustration, questioning and action, looking forward and moving on.
This nation needs to wake up. We encourage many more journalists and media to stop being afraid. People deserve to hear the truth not endless fictional, sales pitching, corrupt word salads.
Until we can reinstate truth, fact, evidence to their rightful place we are doomed. I was subject to a decade long campaign of endlessly repeated falsehood. I didn’t think it would work. But it did and I lost everything in consequence. I sometimes get into arguments with climate deniers. They simply won’t accept the world is descending into a hell hole. D P Moynihan is famous for saying: you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts. I did not think I would live to see that axiomatic dictum proved wrong.
That is an excellent distinction, I would class myself as conservative in some ways...........but not like the label that is now 'conservative'. Like I am pro life and pro choice as an example, and it isn't the classic 'conservative' stance I hold. In fact its not even a stance or a position................it's just where I am in my own journey with the issue. And its not backing both horses..........or sitting on 'the' fence!
It just seems to be getting worse without mainstream media informing the public. It's worrying
🤷That is why we the people of Aotearoa & the global community have to seek out sources & elevate alternative sources of information because "mainstream media" is actually NOT "mainstream" anymore⁉️
Thank you Tui. This is quite sinister, but fully expected action from those driving the fools in parliament.
New section 78AAA of NZ’s Crimes (Countering Foreign Inteference) Amendment Bill creates a new offence where a person: knows, or ought to know, they are acting for a foreign power, and acts in a covert, deceptive, coercive, or corruptive manner, and intends to, or is aware that they are likely to, harm specific New Zealand interests or are reckless as to whether their conduct harms New Zealand interests.
It logically follows that our parliament following the Atlas agenda is committing an offence.
Should we let the minister of justice know?
The same Justice Minister who is a sycophant towards the Atlas libertarian godfather of ACT?
Our odds are strong they will apply it in good faith.
Thanks for the excellent summary, Alan, and then the smile at the end.
😱 Absolutely Police should monitor protests & intervene against INDIVIDUALS using violence & intimidation, even if only to remove them from the scene to protect others present (rather than standing by & watching thugs push down librarians & teenagers 🤷) . But they should in no way decide who can and can't protest absent a Court Order restricting where certain individuals are allowed to go 🤔 (it would be wonderful if citizens could bring civil suit & have the EFTPOStle Brian Tamaki banned from being in a group of more than 5 people in public 😁, as well as those who have engaged in assaulting librarians & terrorising infants ⁉️) IF we didn't already know that the govt of the day can (& does) affect policing decisions & policies, I would be less alarmed, but there should be no LEGAL leeway to allow for biased decisions around who should & shouldn't be allowed to protest, and WHAT they are allowed to protest about 🤬
love that EFTPOStle Brian Tamaki..........good words Cindy.
Sorry about commenting here, can't find another way to get in touch with you. Wanted to let you know that Facebook have removed two posts of mine in the past few days, both of them where I'd shared one of your FB posts. The first is your post dated 16 Feb 2024, where you start out saying "Who's Helping Destiny Church? After Tamaki's people assaulted...", the other I don't have a timestamp for your post, but it was the one on 17 Feb 2025 (I think, that's the day I shared it), where you had the video showing the assault on the stairs in the library. In both cases, they say the posts go against their Community Standards on spam; I've asked for a review in each case. I use the same profile picture there as here, if you want to send me a message via FB, but I don't expect to hear from you just because, so don't feel you have to respond. Wanted you to know what was happening, is all. :-)
That’s so kind of you to let me know. Thank you. Facebook also removed my destiny church post. These platforms will always be increasingly reliable so let’s see how it all goes
Thank you again, Wendy :)
Oh dear, I think I may get my hair pulled for this post.
On the IPCA report: My concern is not about the report, only what the govt might do with an opportunity to clamp down on protest.
I’m doing my best to read: Thematic Review: The Policing of Public Protests in New Zealand on the IPCA.govt.nz site. It’s a very interesting, thoughtful report and I can’t object to it (as far as I’ve got with it, jeepers it’s long).
Please, anybody, correct me if I’m wrong. However, nothing whatever in it suggests any call for mandatory permits for protests or any penalties for not getting one. It argues against these. It calls for voluntary notification to Local Authorities and Police, not as a legal requirement, and even says that if people don’t get them, they will try to protect the protesters’ right to protest safely anyway.
I’m sorry, the Council for Civil Liberties are great, but I honestly can’t believe that they have read the report.
It calls for organisers to set up liaison so that e.g. police can staff up (not to have to call staff out on overtime rates). So that risk management can happen, dangers can be mitigated in advance, that you agree to try to control your crowd (e.g. by discouraging vandalism, using loudhailers to connect on the day), that some traffic management can happen.
After all, the purpose of a protest is to make a point, not to break people’s arms, rip out mailboxes, piss off the whole community and stop people getting to hospital or the airport.
And from my own experience (Amnesty, etc), to do a big public protest with a police escort rolling in front and behind as though you are royalty, is truly amazing. And this has happened, in NZ, in the UK too.
As we know, the IPCA itself deals with police misconduct. The Chair, Judge Kenneth Johnston was appointed by Kiri Allan. The only objection seemed to be https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/04/06/new-police-watchdog-chair-a-missed-opportunity/ that a Māori judge was not appointed, which is fair enough.
Background to the report starts with the 2022 Parliament occupation, where police felt bewildered and conflicted about how to handle it, and the Posie Parker rally in March 2023 where various folks got injured, and while police seemed to do their best, they were at sea. And it criticises over-reaction by police around Israel and Gaza protests, and is scornful about some police efforts to defend this.
Okay, if one views the whole notion of relating with the police as trucking with the enemy who want to stamp out your right to protest, then obviously there’s no discussion to be had. If we see police as the Pigs, as we thought 50 years ago, then so be it.
But read the report. The words ‘right to protest’, ‘protecting the right to protest’, ‘legitimate right to protest’ are all over it and firmly defended. The Bill of Rights Act is mentioned 50 times, plus the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and more, entirely on the right to protest.
Hey, you need a permit to busk in Auckland! Why not a simple notification to set up some liaison 21 days in advance if you’re bringing 10,000 people into the city? And nothing wrong with notification, providing of course you actually accept that you could in fact collaborate with police.
The report wants legislation against picketing an individual’s home. Could be reasonable. Wants more police training in how to respond in these situations to prioritise human rights - what this means. Wants better risk evaluation - - e.g. if a neo-Nazi group has a rally, this is a likely explosion. The ability to advise folks that public safety is at threat, or if they go ahead (because of the right to rally, etc), then how to manage this. It asks a lot of questions about moral conflict in such cases.
The actual police response to the report is defensive, btw. ‘Our boys were right to shove protestors on Israel and Gaza around for their own safety’. And who knows how many individual police have neo-Nazi sympathies and will rough up protesters. Hopefully that is where the IPCA come in.
It’s still a concern though. Not in itself, but what is the government going to come up with in response? Misinform the public that the police see public protests as dangerous, so they have to be banned? We know what is in the playbook agenda.
But this couldn’t be more different from what this report recommends.
Susie - thank you for your observation. I’m going to pass this comment on to the NZCCL but also peruse the report later. Let’s reconnect soon.
PS - to be fair, just realised that the police were shoving pro-Israel protesters around, not pro-Palestinian ones. Minor point but interesting. 'For their own safety', they said.
PPS ironic that the report's recommendations could even lead to a more collaborative relationship between police and community on protesting and create a less polarised perception. Hope the baby isn't thrown out with bathwater. It's the IPCA's fault. Nobody except this idiot is going to read 156 page reports.
Our real concern is the frickin' government.
Susie, I haven't looked in the report in detail but was reflecting on your comment today.
And for me what's significant is a few factors:
1. The clear and present worldwide trend to start criminalizing protests - indisputable where even 70-80 year olds are going to jail for peaceful protest or planning
2. Like all things, when it's presented the pretext is positive, but the track record of what we're seeing - including the Regulatory Standards Bill, the Treaty Principles Bill, the emergency housing and social housing approach, the Health NZ lies etc. - all adds up to we have a government which is aligned to the Atlas Network playbook and does not appear congruent with social goals - or indeed genuine democracy.
(Genuine democracy involves informing people and giving them a choice - not lying or couching things in positive language while harming....)
3. Police co-operation IS important - and indeed the TPB Hikoi was strongly co-ordinated with police.
But it's the pre-approval element can be manipulated.
As you say "our real concern is the govt" and as we can see in the Destiny Church case, the police work for them foremost it appears...
Cheers,
Tui
I tracked a few of the links including to the State Department list of banned publications. At its top was The Economist. Though I no longer subscribe I did for 30 years. Its position on economics was distinctly right of centre.
The Trump gang are not genuinely conservative- they’ve just co-opted the term.
The Economist works on rationale and logic - something is guessing they eschew
I agree. Conservatism is a respectable political position and its true adherents are open to debate. The alt-right are indistinguishable from fascism. Truth and logic are irrelevant to them. Our world is in very deep trouble.
That's the key right there.
This is not the world I want for my children and grandchildren. I will protest for as long as I am able.
What we seem to be going through is a bit like a corrupted grief / change cycle - experiencing disbelief and denial, anger and frustration, questioning and action, looking forward and moving on.
This nation needs to wake up. We encourage many more journalists and media to stop being afraid. People deserve to hear the truth not endless fictional, sales pitching, corrupt word salads.
That would be a start.
Until we can reinstate truth, fact, evidence to their rightful place we are doomed. I was subject to a decade long campaign of endlessly repeated falsehood. I didn’t think it would work. But it did and I lost everything in consequence. I sometimes get into arguments with climate deniers. They simply won’t accept the world is descending into a hell hole. D P Moynihan is famous for saying: you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts. I did not think I would live to see that axiomatic dictum proved wrong.
That is an excellent distinction, I would class myself as conservative in some ways...........but not like the label that is now 'conservative'. Like I am pro life and pro choice as an example, and it isn't the classic 'conservative' stance I hold. In fact its not even a stance or a position................it's just where I am in my own journey with the issue. And its not backing both horses..........or sitting on 'the' fence!