Sunday, March 31, 2019

Commentary of The Week

From staunch US leftist TV host, Trevor Noah on Jussie Smollett.

"Last month, Noah led a segment attacking Smollett for the hoax. While the story is bad, Noah found a silver lining: "When this started out, it was a story about people who hated Jussie Smollett because he was black and gay. But now, people hate him because he's an a**hole. In other words, they're judging him on the content of his character and not the color of his skin, and that is progress," he said."

Hey, hey!

Ouch ouch!


How any readers have noticed that black and albino black activists in the Untied States are attempting to have John Wayne's name removed from the Orange County airport?  Why?  Because he made some mildly offensive remarks in a 1971 interview.

Image result for john wayne

How many readers have noticed the same gang of black and albino black activists have succeeded in having Louisville, Kentucky's airport named after one Muhammad Ali who, more than once, called for people in inter-racial relationships to be killed?

Image result for muhammad ali

There ain't no racist like a black racist.  Just ask a white farmer from Zimbabwe or South Africa.

Little illustrating clearly why the Left despise free thought and expression

Warning: this may have tl;dr tendencies. 

The headline is sufficient.  We shouldn't be fooled by the notion that it's only a "review" or that it's time to "have a discussion".  If you think that, then you will believe that Michael Cullen was asked to lead the Tax Working Group because he had no pre-determined views on taxes and redistribution.

A review is simply the starting point for what Labour and the Greens have wanted for years and years: Blocking (through criminal restrictions) dissenting views and opinions as much as possible to enable their ideology to be promoted more easily.

I am not joking.

Think back to 1999.  Then, Labour was elected and Margaret Wilson came to prominence.  What did she start promoting?  Criminal defamation.  Helen Clark eventually dropped it after much outrage, using "the spirit of Christmas" as her reason.  How noble of her.

But it wasn't too long after when Labour started promoting something even more draconian: The Electoral Finance Act.  I was party secretary of the Act Party at the time, and can confidently state the initial proposals were so bad, I was about to step down, not wanting to go to jail simply to advance a political party's ideology.  If you think I am being extreme, consider the fact the Human Rights Commission, left wing academics and most media outlets were outraged with it.

Once that wore off, it was time for the media, and particularly Fairfax, to grow its own campaign for banning opinions it doesn't like when they decided to block any opposing views on climate change.  

In one regard, Fairfax has every right to, because their websites are their own property, and they set the rules.  But they are the media, and the media should promote the dissemination of views, even opposing ones, rather than quash them.  Just like Fairfax-owned, the Dominion Post, did with the Electoral Finance Act.

In conjunction with the Fairfax ban, the National Party joined the fray with the passing of the Harmful Digital Communications Act.  Only the Act Party voted against this, as it should have.

The National Party, or rather some of its MPs, (cabinet ministers actually, which makes it even worse) should not escape further scrutiny.  They were active in promoting the banning of Wicked Campervans.  Shane Reti thought one slogan, was "too offensive to print".  That's his view of course.  The public was not allowed to judge for itself, because he decided it should be banned.  Fascist, moi? 

So both sides of the main political spectrum are really as bad as each other it seems.

And now Little continues the trend with a "review" of hate speech laws.

A review is a sheep in wolf's clothing, and I am not sure why we even need a review.

Freedom of expression is already subject to many restrictions in New Zealand.  Off the top of my head, I can list (I am sure there are others), defamation, many criminal offences of threatening to kill or threatening or offensive language in the Crimes Act and/or Summary Offences Act, the prohibitions in section 21 of the Human Rights Act (which prohibit discrimination on many grounds including race and religion) and then also the aforesaid Harmful Digital Communications Act.

But somehow those are not enough.  We need more.  That's Labour's thinking in a lot of areas: "There are 124 laws banning hate speech, but if someone says something "hateful" that isn't captured, then we need at least 150".

Because more laws is the answer, just like spending more money is after it's taken off the "rich".  More = better.  That's a very simple argument, and politically palatable to its supporters.

The incredible irony with all of this is that it comes (mostly) from the Left of politics.  Yet it is the Left that calls itself "progressive".

Let's take a historical look at how progressive thought has enabled the free society we have today.

Seven hundred years ago, if a peasant in England had argued that even peasants or servants should have the bible, he/she would have been shouted at or dismissed as a fool  In 1382, leading philosopher, John Wycliffe, was banished from Oxford University for, amongst other "crimes" translating the bible into English.  His work was described as "an offence against the ecclesiastical order".  Progressive thought has quashed this like it should have.

In 1810, someone in Oxford wrote that they were an atheist and didn't believe in God. That person was ridiculed and banished and her works described as offensive and hateful.  Students opposed to her views "swept up copies of her writings and burnt them".  Much like those people today, including the Chief Censor, who ordered the destruction of Tarrant's manifesto.

Even 100 years ago, if someone argued that a man should be allowed to copulate with another man, he (or she) would be arrested and described as hateful and offensive.  Indeed, the law protected these anti-views.  The Chameleon was an openly gay magazine promoted throughout Oxford at the time, which was banned after one publication, because it was "offensive".  Oscar Wilde published a poem in it, and faced criminal prosecution as a result.
This issue from 1894 contains Oscar Wilde's Phrases and Philosophies for Use of the Young and the poem 'Two Loves' by Alfred Lord Douglas, which was used in the trial against Wilde for 'acts of gross indecency'. The poem's last line, 'I am the love that dare not speak its name', was regarded as an allusion to homosexual love.
All of these prohibitions were explained as making Oxford a "safer" place for students.  Sound familiar?

Yet offending against the elite, or political or religious thought has allowed the world to progress to where it is at today.  And indeed, that is a much better place than it was hundreds of years ago.  In other words, liberal progressives, or those on the Left, have generally tried to restrict, or prohibit, the very progress they purport to campaign for and desire.

Anyone who studied European history or philosophy of the 17th and 18th century will understand the Enlightenment, which was led by progressive academics and progressive liberals of the day.

Today's New Zealand progressives and liberals wish to discard all of that and for all intents and purposes behave like the very fascists they purport to oppose.

The Left really need to be careful what they wish for, because eventually one of their own will be hurt by this, if it hasn't happened already.
The only carrot Labour and the Greens have thrown out is the banning of blasphemous libel.  They did that for entirely the proper reasons.  These very reasons still exist that should illustrate to Little, and indeed to all of us, that the "hate speech" hysteria should be burned in the same inferno that Tarrant's manifesto was.  This is what Little said at the time when he removed blasphemous libel from the Crimes Act:
The offence of blasphemous libel...raises potential Bill of Rights Act concerns. This obsolete provision has no place in a modern society which protects freedom of expression,” says Andrew Little.

“This is a law that simply does not apply in the modern context. The last time a blasphemous libel case was considered, in 1998, the Solicitor-General rejected a call to commence a criminal prosecution under the law. The view was expressed that it would be inconsistent with the freedom of expression as protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

“The continued existence of this offence on the statute books was out of place with New Zealand’s position as a bastion of human rights, including recognising freedom of expression and religious tolerance for all faiths.
 If we want to be a progressive country, the liberal left should remind Little of his words. 

Ho Ho Ho

Saturday, March 30, 2019

Like Him Or Not......

....... he is the master of the witty, risque, double entendre insult and put down.

Yes that's President Trump, I'm talking about.

In response to continued baseless allegations of Russian Collusion made by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Democrat Adam Schiff, President Trump labelled him 'little pencil neck Adam Schiff.'

Image result for adam schiff

Red blooded Americans all over the US are laughing their heads off because they all know the president wasn't really referring to his neck.

Adolf is still chuckling.

Friday, March 29, 2019

Borders and Backstops

Like most political tragics I closely followed the storms of Britain in the Thatcher era, especially after  similar tumults hit New Zealand from 1984 on. Similarly with the European politics of the Cold War.

But with the collapse of the Iron Curtain followed by the USSR, the unification of East and West Germany and the departure of Thatcher soon after, I rapidly lost interest in European politics. The whole thing seemed to settle into a period of calm as Eastern Europe slowly began to recover and join up with the West, and British politics settled into an acceptance of the so-called neo-liberal consensus on economics, trade and so forth. For twenty years I barely noted the comings and goings of even the leaders of European nations.

But in the last five years things have changed dramatically. European politics is once again of interest because long-held assumptions are being challenged and turmoil is spreading. It's the Chinese curse of living in interesting times.

Even so, it's difficult to get a handle on that turmoil, no more so than with Brexit. Bluntly, what the hell is going on over there in Britain? Given that even its own Parliament of some 650 members seems to be utterly confused and bewildered, perhaps I should not be surprised that nobody else seems to know or understand either.

So to that end I present one of the better articles I've read on Brexit, How The UK Lost The Brexit Battle - Politico EU.

The article traces the history from the moment the refendum vote occurred to the present day. It seems that Ireland and the EU prepared for a Leave win, whereas the British Tory government did not, and that almost everything has flowed from that since:
The contrast with London was stark. While Cameron refused to allow officials to prepare for a Leave vote — barring officials from putting anything on paper — Ireland had produced a 130-page Contingency Plan with an hour-by-hour checklist.
As Ireland went, so to the EU:
It was at 6:22 a.m. on June 24, 2016 — 59 minutes before the official tally was unveiled — that the European Council sent its first “lines to take” to the national governments that make up the EU.
This meant settling the divorce first and the future relationship second, once the U.K. had left. “In the future we hope to have the U.K. as a close partner of the EU,” the document read. “First we need to agree the arrangements for the withdrawal.” 
This was crucial. It ran counter to declarations by the U.K.’s victorious Vote Leave campaign not to be bound by the formal exit procedure.  
But Britain were like stunned mullets from the start:
“The British government should have offered something very, very quickly,” said one high-ranking official of a large EU country. “If the U.K. had said: ‘Here’s the plan,’ we might have accepted it.” 
“The British strength was being one member state, being able to define its national interest quickly and making its move quickly,” the official said. “It did not do that.”
A group of 27 entities coordinated better than a single entity. How embarrassing, though not a surprise when David Cameron, not a leader I was ever impressed by, washed his hands of it all and quit. Given that he felt responsible, that was the expected move. But in hindsight he made an even bigger mess that others had to try and clean up. That's actually one situation where quitting was not the honourable or best thing to do.
“Where we are now has been obvious for a long time,” said a senior member of Theresa May’s Downing Street operation. “By setting up the sequencing like they did, and putting Northern Ireland in the first phase, this was always going to happen. It was their choice, it doesn’t say anywhere in Article 50 that it had to be like this.
I was also impressed - solely from a technical realpolitik point-of-view - by the EU's slow, overwhelming strangulation of various British positions:
France’s diplomatic establishment schools its officials in the idea of a “rapport de force” — the balance of power in any relationship. As long as the negotiations remained between Brussels and London, there would be no question who had the upper hand. 
And that was maintained by controlling the process. There would be no negotiation without notification, no future relationship without the divorce agreement, and no divorce agreement if the money, citizens’ rights and the problem of the Irish border weren’t sorted out first. 
“The EU, while strategically myopic, is formidably good at process against negotiating opponents,” said Rogers. “No one was paying much attention to how the EU was patiently constructing the process designed to maximize its leverage.”
It's a long article but well worth the read.


My very good friend David Farrar has updated the moderation policy for Kiwiblog and posted the rationale for that here.     I can agree with most of it and particularly the differentiation he makes between Islamic extremists and the majority peaceful members of our own Muslim community.     It's perfectly ok to condemn Islamic extremism but its not ok to label all Muslims as extremists because they're not.

A simple analogy ... we can all condemn the George Pells and the Theodore McCarricks (Catholic Cardinals convicted of child sexual abuse) of this world but, in doing so, you can't argue that all Catholics are equally guilty of that crime.

Having said all that it is important not to go too far in shutting down comment least the blog becomes sterile.    I see a number of commentators reacting to Kiwiblog's revised moderation policy have suggested that as the likely outcome.    It would be sad were this to happen.

In that context I disagree with DPF's decision to ban such terms as 'Golly Gosh' and 'SLG' and 'Simple Simon' in referring to various Members of Parliament.    Politics is a blood sport and if someone wants to refer to the 'venal Mr Peters' then that's ok with me.    Readers are perfectly capable of discerning whether any particular nickname has any sort of validity.   

Free speech is an important right but its a right to be exercised responsibly.    That's where I sit anyway.

Friday's Fulminations

There is mild moderation.  Normal rules of blogger etiquette and courtesy to blog hosts will apply.with serious transgressors being thrown out.

Unfortunately our system does not allow your comments to show up in the blog post itself.  Just in the comments section.

Visitors might consider the wisdom of using moderate language.



Thursday, March 28, 2019

The Chicago Way

You wanna get Capone? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone!
The Untouchables was still in production when I started work in Chicago in the mid-80's but you only had to live there a while before you began to understand how things worked in the city. How they had always worked.

Since the movie came out to critical and commercial acclam in 1987 various quotes from it have become embedded in popular culture, no more so than the one above, where grizzled old beat cop Malone tells dudley do-right Elliot Ness of the only way they're going to convict Al Capone. Even more than the quote, one particular soundbite from it has become a byword in the city, among the public, reporters, cops... Basically everybody speaks of The Chicago Way, usually with raised eyebrows. It has become the phrase to explain a city that lives by a strange corruption that gets things done - or at least used to.

Several years ago during a Christmas family visit I listened to a late-night radio talkfest with a couple of the city's better known journalists talking about the latest construction boondoggle, and they agreed that things had changed;  that the old days had meant 10% skimmed off the top but the job got done, whereas nowadays the take is 20% and the job still isn't finished.

But in Chicago politics, it's still very much how things get done. Which brings me to Barack Obama.

Needs no caption!
Despite his later reputation as a smart smoothie, Obama did not do so well early on. Long distrusted by the city's African-American politicians as a carpetbagger, he won his first political office in 1996, in the Illinois House, by getting all the other Democrat candidates dismissed due to his legal team finding "flaws" in their nominating petitions. He was elected unopposed. This did not make him friends.

Bobby Rush
Then, in 2000, he failed to unseat former Black Panther, Bobby Rush, for a Federal House Seat, with Rush memorably labeling Obama as an "educated fool", who did not even walk like the locals. I'm sure Obama would never want to walk like a Gangster Disciple, but hey, Street Cred, and Bobby obviously knew his voters. He won by 30 points.

Moving on to the 2004 Democratic Senate primaries, Obama was polling in the middle of seven candidates, led by former trader Blair Hull, who spent $30 million of his own money.

And then one day a magical thing happened.

The sealed Chicago court records of Hull's divorce somehow appeared in public, revealing charges of sexual and verbal abuse. Hull dropped out, the others ran out of funds, Obama did a TV blitz, won the primary and faced off against a GOP challenger.

I'm accessing the records now, Captain

No, not her! That's actress Jeri Ryan in her most famous role, as the captured Borg being slowly returned to humanity - one extracted Borg implant and body suit change at a time - in the 1990's TV series, Star Trek: Voyager. But during those years she was married to Jack Ryan. Again: no! Not Tom Clancy's eponymous hero, although the real Jack Ryan must have wondered if fiction could become reality.

In 2004 he was the GOP candidate running against Obama. Once again Obama found himself in a tough race. Ryan was also a smart smoothie, with plenty of funding, and it was a dogfight.

And then one day a magical thing happened.

The sealed Chicago court records of Ryan's divorce were unsealed, revealing that one reason for the divorce was Jeri's accusation that Jack had asked her to perform sex acts in public. Whether this involved wearing the famous Borg bodysuit seen above is not known, but I'd like to think Jack kept that one for private fun. Ryan drops out of the race of course and Obama won with 70% of the vote (In your face, Bobby).

Between now and then, nothing quite as dramatic happened, even though in 2009 Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached, booted from office and jailed for fourteen years for trying to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat. In Chicago this was regarded as merely embarrassing because he had asked for so little money. How could a local boy be so dumb and so poor as to not know the value of what he held? What a schmuck.

As of 2009 he was the fourth out of the previous seven Illinois Governors to be jailed.

And so we come to the Jussie Smollett case. Just to recap, Smollet is a gay, black actor with a role in a TV show called Empire. Judging by ratings and critics, most Americans have never seen it. Smollett apparently decided he needed more fame by climbing on the OrangeManBad train. He claimed that at 2am on a bitterly cold Chicago morning in January, after getting a Subway sandwich, he was jumped by two MAGA-hat wearing white dudes who poured bleach on him, hung a noose around his neck, and yelled at him that "This is MAGA country".  Somehow he fought them off - and kept his sandwich.

All of this supposedly happened in the neighbourhood of Streeterville, one of the toniest parts of downtown, Northside and just a step away from The Magnificant Mile, Michigan Avenue's expensive shops. The story got massive national attention from the MSM who naturally added it to their list of Trumpian sins and wailed about how far America had fallen into the pits of racism and other phobias.

Note to Jussie: stick to acting, because judging by this performance, you'll never get anywhere in screenplay, dialog or directing.

The Chicago Police Department (CPD), well aware of the sensitivity of such charges, doggedly got to work but within ten days had found video evidence of two Nigerians buying the items Smollett claimed were used in the attack. Arrested, they laughingly fessed up to the whole scam, were released with no charges, and the investigation was dropped, humiliating Smollett and the MSM. As the CPD Chief, Eddie T. Johnson, said:
Eddie T Johnson

"Jussie Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career. I am left hanging my head asking 'why?'. Why would anyone, especially an African-American man, use the symbolism of a noose to make false accusations? ... How can an individual who's been embraced by the city of Chicago turn around and slap everyone in the city in the face with these false claims?" 

The CPD and other authorities were angry enough that they demanded action be taken against the hoaxer. Working with Joe Magats, the Cook County State's Deputy Attorney (equivalent to a Deputy District Attorney elsewhere in the USA), they charged Smollett with 16 counts of disorderly conduct in making false charges. A Grand Jury saw the evidence and indicted Smolletts' to a full trial. Some people felt that sixteen charges was overkill, but regarded it as the usual ploy. They'be watered down to one or two minor charges, Smollett would do a deal with a guilty plea, followed by a fine and community service or some such.

Magats had been assigned the trial by his boss, Kim Foxx, who recused herself. She did so partly because she had connections with Smollett via Hollywood, where she's been seen partying with the stars. Stars with lots of money who might help an ambitious DA along the well-worn path of getting into politics.
Kim Foxx

But the main reason was when it was publically revealed that Michelle Obama's former Chief Of Staff, Tina Tchen, had asked her to intervene in the case early on and try and bring the FBI in. Smollett is mates with the Obamas. Of course. In Chicago, many wondered exactly what "recusal" really meant and whether the whole office should back out and appoint - drum roll - a Special Counsel. But the case moved forward anyway.

And then one day a magical thing happened.

Without warning Mayor Rahm Emanuel or Johnson, and while they were at a graduating ceremony for the latest batch of innocent young CPD recruits, Magats obtained an emergency court session and all charges against Smollett were dropped. Magats argument was as follows:
"We believe he did was he was charged with what he was doing. This was not an exoneration. To say that he was exonerated by us or anyone is not true."
"Our goal and our #1 priority is combatting violent crime and the drivers of violence and we look to our resources to do that and I don't think that Mr. Smollett is a driver of violence or a violent individual."
"In return for forfeiting his bond to the City of Chicago and doing his community service, we agreed to dismiss the charges against him. He did community service for Operation Push."
That would be Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition. Smollett did 18 hours over two days in their offices. Sweet deal. Also the Cook County Clerk has found that there were no written motions filed with the court and the case has vanished from the Attorney Office's database, "as if it never existed". A final touch of humor is that the judge also sealed the court records.

As I write, the shitstorm is still gathering pace in Chicago. Emanuel, Johnson and a good chunk of the city are on the warpath. There's always tension between any DA's office and the cops, but this could be a complete relationship breakdown as they're demanding the DOJ investigate the DA's offices and have started releasing all their own paperwork on the case. Smollett can't be happy at that but obviously the CPD don't care anymore.

Questions further afield are being asked because the elections for Mayor of Chicago are coming up in just a few days and the timing seems too good. Who might benefit from this? Candidate Toni Preckwinkle (awesome name, already shortened by her many enemies to "Prickwinkle") had Kim Foxx as her Chief of Staff at one point, is behind in all polls and needs to rark up her base. Emanuel announced ages ago that he would quit as Mayor -  after only two terms. Since he could have held it forever as the Daley family did, the speculation is that he's aiming at Dickhead Turban Durbin's Illinois Senate seat. He also has Hollywood connections, but having this happen on his city watch won't help with that move up. And of course there's Foxx and her political ambitions.

For sure, there's more going on here than obvious things like courts, laws, evidence and so forth. Having started with one movie quote I'll end with another, entirely appropriate as it turns out:

Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.

Wednesday, March 27, 2019


and go to the country?      Because right now 'she' is riding the crest of a wave over her handling of the Christchurch terrorist attack.    Jacinda may be many things but she ain't stupid (silly perhaps) and she will be well aware of the dark clouds on the horizon; the Kiwibuild shambles, increased hospital waiting lists, the opposition to the proposed education reforms led by Pat Newman, high profile Maori educator and past Labour Party candidate ... and that's just for starters.

And then of course there is the little matter of her out-of-control Foreign Minister who delights in shoving it to her.   Dispatched post haste following the events in Christchurch to represent New Zealand at the emergency meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation called to discuss the tragedy and he falls asleep at the top table.    That aside, his presence would have done nothing to enhance our image among the delegates who would have been well aware of his anti-immigration (read anti-Muslim) rhetoric designed to garner cheap political advantage at the expense of measured debate.    FFS Peters ... we're all immigrants to NZL ... even 'your' (half) mob.

So, I come back to the question posed.    I have little doubt that should Jacinda decide to go to the country to seek a fresh mandate the result would see Labour and the Greens back in government.   More importantly Winston First would be history and 'she' would be free of the albatross that currently stalks her every move.    

That would have to be an attractive proposition for St Jacinda to consider.    Her alternative is to see the term through by which time Christchurch will be largely off the radar and all the other 'dark clouds' (or 'events, dear boy, events' as Harold Macmillan was wont to say) will be in play.    Were I Jacinda I know what I would do.    

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Out The Back Of Woop Woop

Many Kiwis will be unaware of the meaning of the Australian term 'Woop Woop.'

It generally refers to somewhere at the back of beyond, never visited by anybody with any brains.  A bit like Waikikamukau or Whangamomona.*

From Wikipedia:-

Woop Woop is an Australian and New Zealand term meaning far away from anything "he lives out woop woop". Equivalent terms include "beyond the black stump" and "dingo woop woop" (also Australia), “Boondock” (S. United States) and “out in the sticks” or "the back of beyond" (E. UK).

Well, guess what.   Woop Woop was a saw milling town, situated between Donnybrook and Boyup Brook in South Western Australia.  The town was abandoned in 1984.

That's not all that far from here so one day The Cook and I might take a drive out the back of Woop Woop.


Adolf has stayed one night at the Whangamomona pub, the day they declared independence and issued passports.


In a blast of rhetoric before the victims had had their dignified disposal carried out,  the country's now internationally significant Head of Government acting in many foreigners eyes as a Head of State took a kneejerk reaction to the tragedy and "Banned" certain weapons as far as personal private ownership under a Category "E" licence, had previously permitted.

During my time as a civilian employee of the Christchurch Arms Office carrying out inspections of safe storage, vetting applicants for new licences, and renewals, vetting non related referees and the other support person of the application a close relative or person in a close relationship with the applicant, some interesting and odd incidents ensued.

AS I related in an earlier post,  the job ended when a protest at the remuneration and cost recovery hit the wall in spite of the salient fact that Banks Peninsula was a lot different to say Rangiora where most of the time and travel involved could have been done on shanks pony or a pushbike.
The Officer's response was to do more of it by Phone  I considered that solution considerably weakened what I viewed as a significant bit of the weapon licensing system so  the job ceased on my call.

On one inspection, a Cat E application, the person concerned was the epitome of one type of "Collector",  his absolute passion was WW1 and 2 personal weapons and small arms, with the jewel in the crown for me a mint condition Bren Gun, one of the most iconic rapid fire weapons of WW2.

Question, how will the new regimes dictatorial efforts in banning personal ownership for whatever reason, this beautiful bit of military history make any of us one bit safer.
Answer, it bloody wont!

Question two, How many Cat "E" weapons legally held, or those licensed owners have been involved in a mass shooting.
Answer AFAIK none zip nada.

Question three, Is there any factual information that suggests Gangs and other clearly identifiable  bad buggers will have  the odds of obtaining rapid fire weapons impeded.
Answer,  again none, AFAIK it is almost too bloody simple, just the costs and they are offset by ignoring storage and troubling compliance, not a biggy for your average thug.

Question four, how long in time and how successful in its application do the snowflakes and mummies boys think this assault on lawful activity that has very scant history of illegal arms offending will take to absoludely end the scourge of MSSA weapons hanging over this country as a lethal threat.
Answer it bloody well will not end it but rest assured there will be much limiting of personal rights and freedoms for law abiding citizens involved in collecting, as to part one of Q4 how long is a piece of string.

Now for a bit of actual  currently widely available potential weapon of mass destruction  that should be keeping the clean undies suppliers for NZ authorities very busy.
During the marketing of our since sold property on the outskirts of Akaroa, we employed a Drone guru to get decent images for promotion.
A drone with four motors carried a camera to provide great images both stills and video of high quality
How difficult for a bad bugger to replace that camera with some semtex or similar and fly it into a church, stadium, or other gathering and create another 'incident".
Once airborne the apparatus was almost invisible, silent and took a lot of searching or a flash of light to make its presence obvious. Could that explain to some extent the Paranoid responding to "Drones" in the vicinity of airports and around unfolding disaster events.

Lots more fertile fields for banning and removal of personal rights with no interference from the erroneously named Human Rights legislation. Hadn't considered, Weapon enthusiasts are not as Human as snowflakes and other ignorant souls maybe.
Big book burning scheduled for when the Grief porn wanes. That will be a lot easier to setup than trying to oppose those horrible social media giants eh.


Gladys Berejiklian wins a third term for the Liberal National Coalition in last weekends  NSW State Elections with the seat of Dubbo yesterday giving a one seat lead in the lower house.

Gladys inherited the Premiership from Mike Baird who in turn had replaced Barry O'Farrel forced to resign the Premiership over a faulty memory concerning a bottle of Wine.

Effective and competent the media party spent some time predicting her demise and with the Pols claiming a dead heat with newish Labor man Michael Daley who followed a troubled Luke Foley who it is alleged had a little problem with wandering hands.
It appeared a week ago Daley was worth a bet then in a self immolation on a TV Debate he was led to give as good a representation of a Possum in the headlights as could be crafted, he didn't just stumble he was exposed stark naked as regards his election promises around spending.

Anyway Gladys won and her back story has been highlighted.
Eldest daughter of Armenian immigrants who only spoke her mother tongue until age five she now has a better speaking grasp of the English that a near neighbour who struggles with jeopardising some quite simple basic words, in particular when no teleprompter is around.
Her Grandparents were orphaned in the original "Genocide' when Ottomans in a sort of last gasp act of brutality forced Armenians to walk to Northern Syria sans adequate water and food.

Go Gladys.

In the meantime self absorbed Michael Daley is resisting calls for him to disappear and that is a little problem for Shorten in a couple of months time as one of the bigger faux pas Daley had to confront before his embarrassing lock jaw over money in debate with Berjiklian were some rather intemperate remarks about Asians in key bits of western Sydney, one of the key battlegrounds in the federal main event.


7.00 am and the Veteran and Mrs Veteran rocked up to the Air NZ check-in counter at Auckland Airport for our flight to Samoa.   Actually Mrs Veteran rocked up alone; I said for her to go ahead and check-in while I drove the car to the long-term car-park.    15 minutes later I returned to find a very despondent Mrs V ... "what's up" I said ... "We're not going anywhere" she said ... "our passports have been rejected because they're due to expire within six months of our visit".

Our (my) fault.   I had booked on line and it had never occurred to me that a current passport due to expire four months after our visit would not be acceptable.

So I approached an Air NZ agent and explained the problem.    His initial response was 'Yes, we do have a problem .... what you need is a special waiver dispensation from the Samoan High Commission in Wellington".    Actually the word we gave me some small encouragement.   "So, what are 'we' to do" ... I said.     The Air NZ human said "Give me your passports, stay where you are and I'll talk to my supervisor".

Saw him talk to another gentleman who then pulled out his cell phone.   Transpired he had the private number of a contact in the SHC.    He woke him up (7.00 am on a Saturday morning) and proceeded to get us the necessary waiver.     Back came the Air NZ check-in agent with a big smile on his face and handed us back our passports along with our boarding passes and said "All sorted, off you go, have a great holiday and I'll look after your bags".

We travel the world a bit.   I can't think of any other jurisdiction where this would have happened ... the meme would have been 'your problem not ours, OTY to sort'.

Air New Zealand is riding tops in my estimation right new.  


Not a lot of coverage on totals though, such a figure will surpass 50  already. Hell less than one a week must be there or thereabouts.

Victim number what?

The appalling death toll of toddlers grows by one more.
This time a two year old little girl found dead on Maketu mud flats has Police upgrading to suspected unlawful killing.

One at a time does not carry the impact of 50 dead on the 15th so no need to wear a bit of cloth askew on a Pollies Head, no calls for banning mudflats, no inquiry into drug abuse, no inquiry into dysfunctional domestic relationships, just another poor wee mite very dead. Yesterday's headline!

When will NZ see this truly tragic toll addressed?

Not this week, too busy with Grief porn and planning of yet another orgy on the second week anniversary of the Mosques attack.
Oh and the Boss of NZ Inc is taking the Magic Carpet to The Peoples Republic for a one day visit??

Breaking News,  an enterprising promotor is arranging a musical response featuring some of NZ 's leading attention seekers.

Remember the old addendum to Catholic death notices RIP,  move on old timer, there is publicity to be harnessed and grief to assist in profile expansion.
Not a lot of "peace"though  for the dead from the rampage by the foreign shooter, bit like rust never sleeps?

Start the Real Probe

It's not often that I decide to simply re-print a piece without adding any commentary of my own, but I doubt I could better this effort by journalist Kim Strassel in the Wall Street Journal today, and because I'm sure you'll see damned little of this reported here in the NZ MSM:
Mr. Mueller’s report likely doesn’t put it that way, but it’s the logical conclusion of his no-collusion finding. The FBI unleashed its powers on a candidate for the office of the U.S. presidency, an astonishing first. It did so on the incredible grounds that the campaign had conspired to aid a foreign government. And it used the most aggressive tools in its arsenal—surveillance of U.S. citizens, secret subpoenas of phone records and documents, even human informants. 
The wreckage is everywhere. The nation has been engulfed in conspiracy theories for years. A presidency was hemmed in by the threat of a special counsel. Citizens have gone to jail not for conspiracy, but for after-the-fact interactions with Mr. Mueller’s team. Dozens more have spent enormous amounts of money and time defending their reputations. 
None of this should ever have happened absent highly compelling evidence—from the start—of wrongdoing. Yet from what we know, the FBI operated on the basis of an overheard conversation of third-tier campaign aide George Papadopoulos, as well as a wild “dossier” financed by the rival presidential campaign. Mr. Mueller’s no-collusion finding amounts to a judgment that there never was any evidence. The Papadopoulos claim was thin, the dossier a fabrication. 
Which is all the more reason Americans now deserve a full accounting of the missteps of former FBI Director James Comey and his team—in part so that this never happens again.
This has been a long, slow-burning war between Trump and the Democrat Party, together with supposedly "civil" servants in government departments and the MSM reporters who have been little more than Democratic Operatives With Bylines. Let's see how many minions in the Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration can survive "process crimes" in their encounters with a Special Counsel.

It's time for Trump and his AG to go on the offensive.

UPDATE I: I could not resist this collection of the US MSM's Mueller pronouncements:

Phrases to remember:
The noose is tightening.
The walls are closing in.
UPDATE II: It has begun, and remember that these two GOP Senators have clashed with Trump often and in ugly ways. I guess eight years of the Bush Piñata act followed by the Aw Shucks losers McCain and Romney, have finally awoken a few of these Republican squishes to the reality of what they're up against. I sure hope so.

Monday, March 25, 2019

Ho Ho Ho - Special Edition

Right now, I suspect Trump is feeling a lot like Conan.

A Certain Idea of Europe

With one deadline for Brexit approaching fast this Friday, March 29, and amidst the growing howling, I recently enjoyed a review of a new biography: De Gaulle, by Julian Jackson, and was struck by a number of passages in the review that seemed very pertinent to Brexit.
(UPDATE: now April 12 after the EU granted May a two week extension, H/T to commentator Count Eggbutt).

The review is by Peter Hitchens and if you're familiar with Christopher's religious brother then you'll already guess that the "melancholy, long, withdrawing roar" of Christianity from Britain feeds his sad, mournful paens to his dead and dying past.

Of course there are similar pasts to this on the European continent as well, and Hitchens uses this opportunity to repeat the same maudlin attitude, in his review: A Certain Idea of France.

Not that he's going to let Jackson or his subject off the hook entirely, kicking off the review with this:
Using pick handles and rifle butts, the police force of one of the world’s most civilized countries surrounded and savagely beat hundreds of dark-skinned men. They then threw them into the beautiful river that flows through a city celebrated for its cultural and artistic wonders. Those who were still alive after the beatings were left to drown. 
This was Paris, City of Lights, on the night of October 17, 1961. To this day, nobody knows how many peaceful Algerian protesters died in this episode, concealed for years by menacing state power and a ­compliant press. Most estimates are in the hundreds.
I confess I'd never heard of this event, not being much of a follower of France, its post-WWII history or its politics. Not only that but De Gaulle struck me, long after his death, as a pompous, arrogant figure who just could not accept France's diminished status in the world. Winston Churchill fought the same fight in the 1920's, but by the end of WWII had recognised the inevitable.

De Gaulle never did, to the end of his days. Naturally enough Hitchens finds that admirable, and perhaps in terms of stoic courage it is. The biography sounds superb and given that it's not a history I follow, I think I'll get it.

But the parts of the review that I thought relevant to today was where he talks about De Gaulle in relation to both the USA and the so-called European Community. While he personalised his fights, De Gaulle knew he was fighting something a lot bigger than one US President.
De Gaulle’s quarrel with ­Roosevelt was based on real loathing. Washington’s vision for postwar Europe, in which the old nations would be diminished and homogenized, was directly opposed to de Gaulle’s idea of a French resurrection in glory and might. Washington loved and promoted the idea of a Europe dominated by supranational bodies, and would later use Marshall aid and the CIA to spread the idea of a European union.
In the hard and non-satirical world, the U.S. also worked ceaselessly to bring an end to the European empires of Britain and France, a cause born out of dogmatic anti-­colonialism. In an American-­dominated world, those empires, including French Algeria, viewed by Frenchmen as part of their country, were doomed.
That's quite a different viewpoint from the common wisdom served up in my lifetime, where the USA was the aider and abetter of these old colonial powers and their 3rd World machinations. Then there's Europe, where the same personal/political fights existed for De Gaulle:
In May 1962, de Gaulle would oppose to this his assertion that Europe could not be real “without France and her Frenchmen, Germany and her Germans, Italy and her Italians.” He said (a recording of the performance still exists) that Dante, Goethe, and Chateaubriand “belong to Europe,” precisely because they spoke and wrote as Italians, Germans, or Frenchmen. They would not, he jeered, have served Europe much if they had been stateless and had written in some form of ­Esperanto or Volapük.
Shades of the joke about an EU soccer team. But he turned these arguements into actions too:
Where he could, he continued to act as if he led a sovereign country. He marched France out of the NATO military command. He took Common Market money but acted as if that body had no power over him at all. He particularly despised efforts to form a European Army, and ruthlessly excluded Germany from nuclear weapons research. He spent billions on nuclear weapons which, one must suspect, were targeted as much on Germany as on the U.S.S.R. In his final few months in power, in February 1969, he astonished the British ambassador to Paris, Christopher Soames, with a plan to dilute the Treaty of Rome and put a stop to the European Community’s ambitions for a continental superstate.
In the end of course, he lost. Not just in being booted from power in the midst of the huge French protests of 1968 - which ultimately were very much against him and what he represented - but in seeing his ideas ignored by his successors, particularly François Mitterrand, his old rival.
[Mitterrand] wholly rejected the general’s belief in an enduring, sovereign France. ­Mitterrand had been decorated by Pétain’s collaborationist Vichy government, and like many intelligent Frenchmen, saw 1940 as a moment of truth that France could not thereafter ignore.
De Gaulle's certain idea of France was replaced by the EU, and it would seem that the Brexiters are fated to go the same way. Hitchens suffers from too much pathos, but the final paragraph should very much strike a chord in the heart of any Brexit voter:
In his fall, many others fell. It was the last brave attempt to raise an ancient banner.

Sunday, March 24, 2019

The Mueller Report

And so it was, late on a quiet Friday afternoon, the long awaited Mueller Report into collusion between presidential candidate Trump and Russian entities was sent off to the Attorney General.

Attorney General William Barr gave nothing away as he ate lunch in the Justice Department cafeteria, parrying questions about the report’s long-awaited arrival.
A few hours later, a security officer from Mr. Mueller’s office arrived and gave what was described by one official as a “comprehensive document” to the man who appointed Mr. Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He, in turn, gave it to the man who must decide what to do next, Mr. Barr.
Mr. Mueller didn’t even go to the Justice Department from his office in southwest Washington to deliver it.
The hand-off was so seamless and low-key that many of the reporters and television crews who had been staking out the department for days failed to notice the security officer had been there.

While the contents of the report remain unreleased, Mueller has advised publicly there will be no further indictments arising from his investigation.

Two things.

First, I find it instructive that he did NOT say there was no evidence of collusion for the purpose of influencing the presidential election.  You see, I understand he would be unable to indict Donald Trump until he is no longer president and that day more and more looks to be over five years away.  So, I'll wait a while until AG Barr releases more or all of the report.

Second, I'm amazed at the ho hum reaction of centre right blogs and news services in the US.  I thought they'd be shouting with glee from the rooftops but no.  The reaction seems to be something along the lines of ' we always knew it would be a fizzer.'

Not so the lunatic left with CNN's Rachael Maddow bursting into tears on live TV as she reported there would be no further indictments and MSNBC's Chris Matthews expressing outrage that 'Trump got off.'  Various other loud mouthed luminaries called for the inquiry to be extended and for Mueller to be called under subpoena.

Nancy Pelosi seems to be the only one who can see the calamitous writing on the wall for the Democrats.   She advises them all to 'forget about impeachment, there's nothing there.'

Of one thing you can be sure, the president's campaign for 2020 just became  whole lot easier.


Around six centuries after the Jesus thingy took ancient Judaism shook it up and so began Christianity, another bunch living in the deserts of Arabia created another offshoot of belief and called it Islam.

The acknowledged God of that new outfit was named Allah and evidently as a newly created "God" , Allah was deemed above average so they called out on a regular basis he "was great", though  not a lot of explanation as to how that status was  gained. Suffice to say it has stuck and several times a day adherents are called to obeisance and reminded again the boss is still great.

Does that behaviour have any comparison to bodies of the faithful surrounding a leader and rising to their feet with accompanying adulation   by clapping fervently, with no one willing to demonstrate a lack of  commitment to the cause by ceasing with the acclamation first.
A charade of support that graced the cities of first Moscow, then Peking and latterly  Pyongyang.
Noticeable that such scenes of mass hysteria never graced the small screen during Pol Pots slaughter, just  no time to get around to it maybe with killing so many in the short time frame that monumental failure of extreme socialism  ran for.

Today there is a considerable body of non believers and  maybe merely less than the enthusiastic in Islam who just maintain a semblance of adherence by attending functions, doing the obeisance bit and then getting on with life.
The leadership on the other hand seem to indulge in "mine is bigger than yours"  activity to prove superior obedience and submission to an extent where active participation in the ongoing spectacle    indulges some extreme demonstrations of fealty.
Current good boys in Saudi have a bit of the capital City Riyadh referred to in certain quarters as "Chop Chop Square" where after sufficient religious fervour is generated by Imams, a parade of truly horrible punishments are meted out to bad people in a bloody exhibition of death disfigurement and debauchery.
Women in some of the more strict places of Islam are chattels to be collected and disposed of according to the wishes of the men(sic) and controlled as to what they wear, where they go, who they go with and all the while Mr Muslim   keeps the money.  A small facet of Islam that has created a minor bottle neck in Christchurch with the disbursement of the millions collected in "Give  a Little" as surviving widows do not have a bank account or any sharia  approved mechanism to access the maloola donated by the horrible kafirs of NZ in an outburst of sympathy, empathy and very ordinary looking out for victims. Similar to the largesse flowing from the centers of Islam to make things more tolerable for the hoards of asylum seekers entering Europe, oh that is right they gave nothing did they.

Apparently temporarily forgotten in the plunge to be the bestest supporter of the surviving victims of the  deranged Australian nutjob on the ides of March there are in this country of diversity, kindness and wellbeing, another bunch of women who wear funny bits of cloth on their heads, are allegedly under the domination of the senior menfolk of their sect who periodically come under the microscope of the self absorbed  MSM as deserving of saving and freeing from their religious persecution. Originally called Cooperites when in last century Good old boy Neville Cooper  (another mentally deranged if never so murderous, Aussie)  started up his belief system at Cust between Rangiora and Oxford in North Canterbury.  This occurred in a similar time frame as "Dr Metcalf" created his little band of disciples in Aranui then moved that  cult to a strip of land between the old Highway One and the new deviation as it stands today on the South Bank of the Waipara. No where approaching the economic creation of Hopeful Christian but no doubt taking full advantage of the "Charitable Status of "Churches", enjoyed by so many functioning businesses in 'godsown today.
"The God Squad" in local parlance, I was involved with  to a degree that was uncomfortable due to the primary school connections I had recently ended due to our children moving  on to College.

Neville's creation facing space limitations at Cust plus some minor inquisitive activity,  Nev upsticks and moved to Haupiri in the West Coast foothills of the Main divide and called the place "Gloriavalle", at the same time rebranding himself  "Hopeful Christian".
Now these people who AFAIK do not do the physical mutilation bits aligned to Islam though it might be suggested that not all their practices totally avoid metal pressures to conform and perpetrate a disturbing to some,  male dominated society,  they mostly just live their lives in a fervent wish to be allowed to indulge in their faith based lifestyle
I understand they are very successful in business, mainly dairy farming and support activity, are good neighbours and apart from some stories from members opting to leave gaining a certain amount of undesired publicity  for the sect from  Media wannabes for the apparent unforgivable perpetrating a commune type existence of reasonably acceptable  activities that are  largely seen as part and parcel in other weird religious sects. No evidence as yet of discipline where  lives might be  forfeit at Gloriavale.

Can anyone recall the more than occasional investigative forays into Gloriavale by NZ media both  state and commercial,  being unloaded on  Islam and its somewhat  alternative  behaviours.
Not afaIk, in stark contrast to the state led bending over to assume an acceptance and standing up to what indeed was a truly awful assault on the Friday worshippers  by a single deranged Foreigner.
The event  is now in the eyes of a growing number, a sorry cringeworthy effort extending of the grief process with scant regard as to any damage the teeth gnashing might inflict on many young minds with no comprehension of the issues,   yet daily being assaulted by the still extended replaying of  the infotainment orgy.

Apparently politically acceptable to challenge, denigrate and assess the Exclusive Brethren, Seventh Day Adventists,  Gloriavale, Cardinal Pell's team catholic and Tamaki's outfit yet we must give Islam a free Pass. could one be visited by George Orwell's successors for getting it wrong and indulging in state invented "Hate Speech" whatever that is deemed to be currently.

As a footnote how is one who inadvertently down loads bits of Tarrant's live stream in complete ignorance supposed to have been made aware that the CHIEF CENSOR backed by Orwellian decree powers has made such imagery illegal to own, possess or distribute? just asking for a mate you know UM.

Ho Ho Ho


Last Friday I watched the events unfold in Christchurch from afar.   At the time I authored a simple post where I said that the attack was an attack against us all but that there would be some who would argue differently.   The post attracted some 100 comments which would have to be a record for this blog.

To say I was appalled at the tone of some of the comments is to put it mildly.   It was a time for mourning and not a time for cheap political point scoring or whatever.     Over the next few days I undertook some serious soul searching as to whether or not I wanted to continue as a commentator on No Minister ... put simply, did I want to be associated with, or give a platform to those whose views on contemporary society are abhorrent to me.

I have seen enough killing in my life to know that I stand four square alongside the likes of Wiki Kahika, a gentle giant of a man, decorated for his service in Vietnam.   Wiki was no great philosopher but one thing he said to me a few years back that has resonated with me hugely ... "Before I went to Vietnam I enjoyed hunting and eeling; when I came back I realised I could never kill another living thing".    Anyone who seeks to justify random killing has lost the plot.

The terrorist killing on Friday was hate inspired and hate has no place in our country ... we can agree to disagree and we can oppose something employing any and all legitimate means available to us but once we cross the line and inspire/condone hate it is but a very small step away from actively promoting violence of the sort we saw in Christchurch.

Hate is not the exclusive purview of the alt right because it exists in many forms right across the political spectrum so spare me the sanctimonious bullshit that would seek to consign it to such misfits as Brenton Tarrant and his enablers of the Fraser Anning variety ... and spare me too the comment expressing some relief that Tarrant was an Australian ... he could have just as easily been a New Zealander.  

So lets cut to the case.   There's a New Zealand politician with blood on his hands and we should not be afraid to say so.    Winston Raymond Peters, Deputy Prime Minister in the CoL has, in every election since NZ First was formed, made a meal out of his anti-immigration rhetoric ... read anti Muslim or anti anything that was guaranteed to produce a headline.    Peters is an enabler as much as Fraser Anning is an enabler albeit is more subtle (and incidious) sense.

Prime Minister Ardern deserves credit for the way in which she responded to the killings but she would show true inspired leadership were she to say to Peters that he was a blot and stain on the country and went to the country seeking a fresh mandate.    Right now Labour and Greens would win at a canter and Winston First would be consigned to the dustbin of history.

I acknowledge that some commentators including my old friend Egbut have called upon me to be far more censorious of 'hate speech' (however defined).     The problem I have with that is that one persons hate speech is another persons free speech.  Am I to censor Israel Filou for his genuinely held and stated belief that all homosexuals will end up in 'Hell' ... am I to censor our David for his colourful language in opposition to Israel... if I am to censor how can I argue that Don Brash has a right to be heard.   Fact is I can't.    Far better that nutter comments have the searchlight shone upon them and the poster ridiculed for the idiot they surely are.  

"Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other from of freedom" .... US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo in Palko vs Connecticut.   True in 1937 and remains true today.

So, unless a person actually advocates violence in a post then I won't be black-lining their comment but nutter comments can will be ridiculed and, in that respect, I'm happy to play the man and not the ball. 

Where To Now, New Zealand?

I really don't like to write about NZ nowadays, given that most other bloggers here cover local events. But the atrocity of March 15 forced itself into all our lives here and could not be ignored.

In our hearts I think we all felt that such a thing could not happen in New Zealand. Our distance and isolation made us a meaningless target and our general relaxed culture did not generate the sorts of fiery hatreds turned into actions that we see in other countries. In our heads we looked at how tough it would be for an organised cell to get here and then make plans and preparations in a country with such a small population that most are only two or three degrees of separation away from knowing someone and what they're up to. Even having 1.5 million guns in circulation but such a low level of gun crime, especially by legal gun owners, made it clear how peaceable a people we were.

But in our heads we also knew it was possible, even inevitable. We are not so different from the rest of humanity. I recall a conversation several years ago with some National-voting friends, quite Right-wing, after yet another mass shooting in the USA. They're ignorant of firearms and talked of "machine guns", as is usually the case with such people. I had to explain to them what a semi-automatic was and how I could buy one here very much the same as in America, but without the high capacity magazines. They were a little shocked but I explained the licencing procedure and said that gun owners tended to keep an eye on one another, so the chances of a nutter slipping through were remote.

But still possible. And like the astronauts climbing into the Apollo 1 spacecraft or the folks planning how to evacuate the Twin Towers, we all suffered from a failure of imagination about what could happen. I can't think of a single gun owner or cop I've known who thought of an immigrant loner getting a gun licence after just landing here and with such a plan of attack in mind. It's likely that our security services did not either.

Still, New Zealand has reacted reasonably well. Admittedly much of the emotion has been over-the-top and very unlike what we perceive ourselves to be. It reminded me somewhat of the unexpected emotional tsunami from supposedly stiff-upper-lip British people in reaction to Lady Diana's death.

But even so, I have never been so grateful as I was this past week to have stopped watching and listening to the NZ MSM fifteen years ago. What I have heard and largely not seen has been filtered through various NZ blogs, but even there the levels of hysteria, emotion and group think have been nearly off the scale. That aspect seemed like we were losing our minds.

I can therefore only barely imagine what it has been like for those of you still silly enough to be tuning to One News, 3News and Radio NZ 's National Programme. But of course where the local MSM goes, the foreign MSM has already led. It's like a hivemind and it's summarised pretty well by some smartass who put together the following contrasting headlines from popular US magazine /  website Slate, one from 2016 and one from 2019:

This is a pitch-perfect example of MSM reporters and editors Borging globally with their Leftist, Woke counterparts in the activist and political worlds and employing the double standards we've all come to know so well.

This is who they are. This is what they do.

In an instant the Right and the Left have somersaulted over eachother and exchanged knives. The terms used for the last twenty years by much of the Left whenever a Jihadist terrorist attack occurred - "Lone Wolf" and "Not Representative of the Whole" - are now being dismissed by them as deflection and excuse-making. Forget any debate about which terrorist actions can accurately be described by these terms, the fight being less one of definitions and their application than about drowning opponents in the sheer quantity of repetition and volume.

Chris Trotter is obviously more than a little worried about what he's seeing and hearing because he covers this in not one, but two recent articles, The Method in The Madness, and Keeping The Devil Down In The Hole. From the first:
Bluntly, what the terrorist is trying to do is rob us of our free will. After the deed, he is counting on us doing exactly what the awfulness of his actions prompts us to do. He wants our reaction to be driven not by what we think, but by how we feel. 
And, it’s working.
He points out that although the reaction from the broader public has been good,  in other quarters we've seen something very different and very negative, like this from a commentator at No Minister on the day of the shootings:
Vet - David ... FFS ... lift your game please. This is time for mourning. The recriminations can come later.  
David - No, now is the time to apportion blame, while the wounds are visceral and raw. Now is the time to call out the enablers of white supremacists.
Hence Chris's comment:
Wreaking vengeance on the single perpetrator of the Christchurch Mosque Shootings will not be enough for those who refuse to see him as a lone-wolf terrorist, but rather as a symptom of New Zealand society’s deeper ills. The temptation, especially on the Cultural Left, will be to hold conservatives and conservatism individually and severally liable. Not, of course, for the deed, but for creating the ideological climate out of which the deed emerged. 
Those even further to the left (among whom we must now include an alarming number of Greens) will go even further. They will tell New Zealanders that all this horror is, really, their fault. That they must simply accept that, be it the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, the sins of the colonial fathers will out. That Pakeha New Zealanders must, accordingly, surrender their “White Privilege”.
Even though he's a child of the 60's Counter-culture revolution, Chris is a still a member of the Old Left, determined to keep the idea of class warfare in focus as the cause of most of our societal ills, and with little time for the post-modern world of Intersectionality and Identity Politics carving the proletariat into ever finer slices of victimhood. As such he's been belittled considerably in loftier corners of the NZ Left like Public Address, where he finds himself mocked, along with Paul Buchanan, as yet another Old White Reactionary Male. A few other such Lefties have found themselves banned from the likes of The Standard blog because the moderators insisted that criticism of Islam equaled Muslim Hate Speech.

In the second article Trotter looks forward to what this might mean for free speech in our country:
Not that the Prime Minister’s worries are located exclusively on the right. Already, she is reported to be casting anxious glances to her left. The radical wing of the Green Party is in the process of staking out an aggressively uncompromising position on hate speech. This has earned them much respect on Twitter, but it is unclear how favourably the hard-line stance of Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman is being be received by the broader electorate. Labour will be keen to avoid the perception that they are being led into the ideological long grass by its “woke” allies.
Chris's usual parochial concerns are present as he worries about how the "Far Right" could grab this chance "to get back in the game", but to give him credit he seems genuinely concerned about voices such as the two named. As he wrote those words he may have been unaware of the Chief Censor banning the shooter's manifesto, even as an Imam in Los Angeles waves it around during his sermon.

In 1951 Syd Holland's National government passed some of the most draconian laws against free speech outside of the Communist bloc, ironically to combat Communism in New Zealand. One story was that Walter Nash, then Labour Party leader, turned up to speak at a union meeting and was told, by a senior cop blocking his way, that he would be arrested. Nash showed a degree of spine in saying he was going to speak anyway, and moved into the hall to do so. The cop apparently had good judgement and Nash was not arrested. The story, which was one of the earliest political ones I got from my Dad, may be apocryphal but there's no question that a number of Left-wingers had their jobs and livelihoods threatened by those laws and it's regarded today by almost everyone as a black mark on NZ's history of civil liberties.

So we have historical form with authoritarianism, and combined with our desperate, modern cultural need to be "nice" and "tolerant", together with the cult of victimhood, we could be looking at a future described here in a recent article looking at future warning signs in the USA:
If one were to predict between comity and authoritarianism in the coming years the odds would favor authoritarianism. Never has so much naked ambition disguised itself as virtue, and the more loudly political factions proclaim they're out to save the world, the more ruthless they are likely to be. Liberty will come under assault from the banner of tolerance; fascism will advance in the guise of grievance.
And let's not kid ourselves about this just being an issue of State Power. It doesn't work unless you have plenty of private citizens eager to catch the witches, as the blogger known as MacDoctor has just found out, and as yet another commentator at No Minister demonstrated the other day:
The UK hate speech law would have blog hosters in jail because in NZ they are easy to find. Gravedancer in Akaroa would take five minutes to identify. Adolf would take a little longer to find, the NZ police would leave no stone unturned.
No member of the East German Stasi could have said it better.