And late breaking kudos to Kiwis! - New Zealand voted out - in a very big way - the Labour Party of erstwhile woke-o-tyrant prime minister - and now Harvard bon vivant - Jacinda Ardern.
From a previous article:
Last week, former New Zealand prime minister, current Harvard dual fellow, and lockdown queen Jacinda Ardern spoke to the august body about stopping people from saying bad things - https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-zealand-prime-minister-condemned-calling-regulate-free-speech-weapon-war-un
This is of course no surprise. Ardern’s track record of tyranny is rather well-established as she forced her country into the strictest pandemic lockdown this side of Beijing. In fact, the last of the “covid restrictions” in New Zealand were only lifted one month ago – if you tested positive for the virus on August 22, you had to isolate for seven days; test positive on August 23, no problem.
I’ve always found it fascinating that some believe the virus knows what color you are, can tell time, and can notice the difference between a person being in a house and being on an airplane, but I digress.
Ardern – in her typically almost sociopathic passive-aggressive manner - said “free speech” is something “we all value,” BUT, improperly used, it is an “equal threat to the norms we all value.”
We, of course, being the global elite of which Ardern is now a committed member and something of a spokeswoman.
She then compared speech to a weapon of war used by people to cause chaos and it must be fought/controlled in order to “bring us back to order.”
Bring us back to order – and she said that in public. One can only imagine how she really feels and what she would really do if she got her way.
Oh, we don’t have to imagine – look at New Zealand - https://reason.com/2022/10/03/new-zealand-p-m-jacinda-ardern-peddles-government-censorship-to-an-international-audience/ . And look at what she has said before: https://theconversation.com/jacinda-ardern-calls-for-ethical-algorithms-to-combat-online-extremism-what-this-means-160986
CNN, however, wsa sad: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/13/asia/new-zealand-general-election-labour-national-intl-hnk/index.html
And now back to Australia!
By landslide proportions, Australians have rejected the dangerously woke, dangerously vague aboriginal “Voice” proposal.
At this point, with almost all the ballots counted, the Voice lost by 20 points – 60.12% No, 39.88% Yes.
It also failed to carry any of the individual states (it would have had to carry at least four plus win the popular vote to have passed) except for the Australian Capital Territory – the down under equivalent of the District of Columbia.
Funny how that works out, actually – the only place in the country that wanted to pass a constitutional amendment that would have unquestionably increased the power of the bureaucracy was the home of that bureaucracy. Wonder why.
Only a few months ago, the Voice was a winner. When first unveiled in January, it was 30 points ahead and maintained a lead in the polls until July - https://thomas699.substack.com/cp/137802172
The press reaction to the No vote is as expected – Reuters called the vote a “setback for reconciliation,” the Washington Post said Australians had voted “against giving Indigenous people a voice in parliament,” CNN noted the vote will “inflict lasting damage on First Nations people…” and one Sky News reporter called it a “tragedy” and “deplorable” (my, that word gets around.)
To sum up – white people did a bad thing.
So what was the Voice anyway, you ask? There is no real clear answer to that and it is that fact – plus the inherent divisiveness of giving 4% of the public their own special governmental thingy – that seemed to drive the No vote.
Here’s a piece written by an actual Australian that may explain exactly what the Voice was supposed to be: https://thomas699.substack.com/p/australias-approaching-constitutional . In a nutshell, the Voice would have set up an advisory body appointed by other politicians with vague, unlimited? limited? Powers to opine on/create/enforce? laws relating to aboriginal issues or maybe everything?
Here’s the text of the question:
“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
And here’s the enabling law text:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
In other words, the Voice would end up being whatever the bureaucracy – sorry, parliament - wanted it to be.
That check is so blank it doesn’t even have a routing number.