It’s time for some more second-rate drivel on constitutional matters. While I have no right to claim credibility on such issues, I feel that ignorance, bigotry and small-minded denigration are not at all out of place when demolishing the case for a New Zealand republic. So I pass off the following ignorant rant as informed comment. Because it is. Badly cobbled together assumptions, fundamental errors, and rank ignorance are important debating tools for the limited thinker whose mind is closed.
The case for a New Zealand republic sets out the main arguments for why New Zealand should become a republic. They fall into three categories:
Independence â New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state; Nationhood â the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand’s national identity, culture and heritage; Democracy â New Zealand should have a democratic and accountable head of state.
I’ve already demolished the “Independence” argument that New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state. In this post, I’ll take a look at the Republicans’ argument that the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand’s national identity, culture and heritage, under the heading “Nationhood”.
Nationhood
“The case for an independent republic of New Zealand is summed up in one word â nationhood. It is a statement to the world and ourselves that New Zealand is a mature nation, that we possess a constitutional framework that best suits New Zealanders.” â Michael Laws, Mayor of Wanganui.
Well, according to the Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand, the case for an independent republic of New Zealand is actually summed up in three words â independence, nationhood and democracy. So why quote Michael Lawsâof all peopleâif you consider him not even half right? Last I heard, Laws was claiming that the city of which he is mayor does not possess a name that best suits New Zealanders. His opinions on what constitutional framework best suits New Zealanders are surely tendentious.
New Zealand is a unique, dynamic and diverse country. New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state should reflect this.
There’s no argument here. Just the assertion that New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state should reflect the fact that New Zealand is a unique, dynamic and diverse country. Why should New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state reflect this? And how? It’s unclear.
A republic affirms New Zealand’s sense of nationhood
“We exhibit symptoms of retarded nationhood: a widespread insecurity about what others think, a search for applause and endorsement by visitors; and, conversely, a begrudging willingness to extend applause here at home.” â Simon Upton former minister and National MP.
I frankly confess, in my teen years I used to exhibit symptoms of retarded nationhood. I felt insecure about what others thought of me and sought applause and endorsement by visitors. If the young folk of today can be spared the terrible angst I endured simply by promoting Dame Susan from Governor-General to Head of State, then I must be all for it. But I remain skeptical.
Becoming a republic and electing New Zealand’s head of state will foster a deeper and more sophisticated sense of nationhood. It will clarify to New Zealanders, and to the world, what New Zealand stands for.
What do you stand for? Republicanism can help you answer this important question. Perhaps you have some idea but you’re not clear. Or perhaps you’re just shallow and unsophisticated. What you need is to wake up one day to find yourself living in a republic, and everything will come swimming into focus. You will carry on living as before, but now with a deep sense of nationhood.
How New Zealanders understand their place in the world is crucial to New Zealand’s success in an increasingly globalised world.
We’re a small nation of 4.5 million people in the South Pacific. It helps to know that.
New Zealand excels in sport, in its human rights record, in business and in the arts. New Zealand’s constitution lags behind these achievements.
New Zealand’s constitution lags behind Nathan McCullum’s dismissal of England’s Joe Root at Trent Bridge. Does that even make sense?
Our current constitutional arrangement causes confusion overseas as to whether New Zealand is linked to Britain, or whether it is part of Australia.
I think overseas confusion over whether New Zealand is part of Australia is caused by ignorance of the geography of the South Pacific, not by our current constitutional arrangement.
We send conflicting messages about who we are and what we stand for.
I don’t think I do. Perhaps the author is using the “royal” we. Wouldn’t that be ironic?
The debate and discussion around becoming a republic affirms the values that are important to New Zealanders. It will promote discussion about New Zealand’s history and future. It will clarify the values we all see as important. Becoming a republic will be a celebration of New Zealand’s unique culture and heritage.
No, it won’t. New Zealand is a bicultural nation. While many Maori (and, indeed, non-Maori) go to strenuous lengths to preserve Maori culture and heritage, many Pakeha seem hell-bent on severing all connection with their own. New Zealand originated as a British colony. Becoming a republic will be a deliberate repudiation of our colonial heritage and cultural past which has its roots in Great Britain, Ireland and Europe.
It will demonstrate New Zealand’s confidence and independence and it will symbolise a shared sense of nationhood.
I’m going to close on a serious note here. The last time I read someone banging on and on about a shared “sense of nationhood” was when I read the opening pages of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. Let’s be clear. All talk of and nurturing of “nationhood” is thinly disguised fascist social engineering. There, I’ve gone and done it. I’ve invoked Godwin’s Law and completely and utterly demolished my own argument.
Feel free to name-call in the series of strange comments below. Diatribes welcome.
Does that actually mean anything????
This Meme is supposed to inspire Awe and portray Atheism as ‘an Enlightenment’.
Is this so?
What sort of ‘self’ is ‘discoverable’ via the loss of religion?
It can only be an ultimately worthless self… trapped within a Cold, nihilistic, indifferent universe which will inexorably pulverize and expunge all evidence of humanity’s existence into oblivion … and render our acts of love and kindness as valueless, and indistinguishable as our Acts of Violence and depravity…. When Man looses God… he suffers Eternal death.
He looses everything that makes his Humanity âdistinguishableâ, from the cold indifferent Material reality. He looses his Rights. His Moral compass looses itâs North.
What is left but to Eat, Drink and be MerryâŚfor tomorrow we die?
I pity the man who believes this is âSelf discoveryâ!
Yet there is something in all of this which I believe is *Really what such People* seek⌠and that is that they actually *want* to loose their ânorth poleââŚbecause they are tired of knowing that that is the direction they ought to travel …when all their lusts and their sloth has them looking South!
When they Loose GodâŚand seek to hide from objective moral reality… they abandon their conscience⌠and travel south âfreeâ of Objective moralityâŚ. Now in their new Nihilistic reality they can do as they pleaseâŚ
They have abandoned God to escape Moral accountability.
This is what Pitt means by being ‘Untethered’.
I ask… “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Matt16vs26
I do not deny the fact that this is a very ‘Natural’ a very powerful urge’ for The Sons and Daughters of Fallen Adam… Yet it must be resisted at all costs!
This is not an enlightenment, but the very opposite!
It is to Run from the light… into the Dark.
It is pure self Delusion!
It is not an act of bravery, but a cowardly retreat… a defeat from following the High road, and instead to take the Lower, easier path…. with all the rest who cant be bothered living as Human beings…. that is Moral Agents in a Moral reality…
They prefer to run off into the Jungle and live as beasts…
That is their self delusion…. their verdict on humanity.
Yet God is not mocked.
It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this, the Judgement.
“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
John 3:19
One of the chief reasons many Atheist’s react with Demon-like Tirades and Blasphemies against Theistic declarations of faith in God is because they simply wish to remain hidden in the darkness of their own self delusion. The last thing they need is Pesky Theists⌠spoiling their Buzz by Being told that one day they shall stand before God and give account for their sins!
This is the very truth they seek to hide from!
It summons the deepest hatred, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
What is truely sad about this is that they will be damned by their own choice.
God has done everything to save us sinners from Damnation if we will but simply trust in Christ and his work of Salvation on the cross.
“But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”
“Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved”
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Chriat our Lord”
St Paul.
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
War is Hell.
What do you do when you, and a bunch of Sluggish minor Aircraft carriers youâre Guarding, are surprised by an Enemy (Jap) Battle Fleet baring down….which includes the Greatest Battleship ever built (the Japanese Yamato) , with the greatest Guns ever put to sea…and they start to Pound away at such a distance that your own puny guns are pitifully short on range?… and what’s worse… you are the only thing between this Enemy Fleet and your own Invasion force…which will be decimated if this Battle fleet succeeds in engaging the Invasion troop carriers and landing vessels????
This is a circumstance not in the training manual!
Well what Commander Evans of the USS Johnston, and a handful of other tiny ‘tin cans’ decided to do was not to run… not to abandon their Charges… but turned and drove headlong into Battle… against the Goliath…. And the Battle which ensued was the stuff of Legend!
She would not survive, and yet The tale of her exploits, and those of her companions effected World history by diverting the Japanese away from their objective of halting General Macarthurâs invasion of the Philippines.
Many rightly say that War should not be glorified.
War is indeed a disaster!
An evidence of Man’s Loss of God.
And yet despite all our hopes and prayers to the contrary…War… like so many horrible circumstances we can find ourselves enduring … is a reality…. and it is in such times of crisis that the Mettle of men is put to the test.
It is a time when Higher values (If you got em) come into play which inspire a Contempt for Death.
… I donât know how I would fare under such conditions, having never face such a trial by fire, and yet I bow my head in reverence at hearing the of the truly heroic exploits as were the deeds of the Seamen aboard the USS Johnston and her Sisters in the Battle of Samar.
That such a tiny Vessel and her companions could against all odds put up such a fight…for so long …against such a formidible Adversary is the stuff of Legend… and WW2 was a time not only of great Tragedy, Great Brutality, and great waste…. but also an age of great Heroism, and great Humanity.
I just watched the Discoveryâs ‘Ultimate Warfare’ coverage of this Historic Naval battle, and it was heart wrenching, and Glorious!
To appreciate what my Grandfathers generation went through to protect Western Civilisation from the Tyrannical Warmongering Axis powers.
It is in recalling such True stories of War Heroism in which the Thinking compassionate man will salute those who go into Battle for the sake of defending their Homelands from Foreign aggression, from terrorism, or as peace keepers attempting to establish order in lands of Anarchy, villainy, and Chaos.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
…Engagement of Taffy 3 [edit]Main article: Battle off Samar
On the morning of 23 October 1944, American submarines detected and attacked units of the Japanese fleet coming in from the South China Sea toward the precarious Leyte beachhead. The battleship-cruiser-destroyer Southern Force was decimated as it attempted to enter Leyte Gulf via Surigao Strait the night of 24/25 October. The more powerful battleship-cruiser-destroyer Center Force under Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita had been pounded by Admiral âBullâ Halsey’s attack carrier planes and presumably turned back from San Bernardino Strait. Admiral Halsey then raced north with his attack carriers and heavy battleships to engage a decoy Japanese carrierâbattleship task force off Cape Engano. This left Johnston and her small escort carrier task unit as lonely sentinels in north Leyte Gulf, east of Samar and off San Bernardino Strait.
As enemy ships fled the Battle of Surigao Strait at daybreak of 25 October, the powerful Japanese Center Force slipped through San Bernardino Strait and into Leyte Gulf. It steamed along the coast of Samar directly for Johnston’s little task unit and the American invasion beachhead at Leyte, hoping to destroy amphibious shipping and American troops on shore.
One of the pilots flying patrol after dawn alert that morning reported the approach of Japanese Center Force. Steaming straight for “Taffy 3” were four battleships (including Yamato), eight cruisers (two light and six heavy), and 11 destroyers. Johnston’s gunnery officerâLieutenant Robert C. Hagenâlater reported, “We felt like little David without a slingshot.” In less than a minute, Johnston was zigzagging between the six escort carriers and the Japanese fleet and putting out a smoke screen over a 2,500 yd (2,300 m) front to conceal the carriers from the enemy gunners: “Even as we began laying smoke, the Japanese started lobbing shells at us and the Johnston had to zigzag between the splashes…. We were the first destroyer to make smoke, the first to start firing, the first to launch a torpedo attack….”[2]
For the first 20 minutes, Johnston could not return fire as the enemy cruisers and battleships’ heavy guns outranged Johnston’s 5 in (130 mm) guns. Not waiting for orders, Commander Evans broke formation and went on the offensive by ordering Johnston to speed directly toward the enemyâfirst a line of seven destroyers, next one light and three heavy cruisers, then the four battleships. To the east appeared three other cruisers and several destroyers.
As soon as range closed to within ten miles, Johnston fired on the heavy cruiser Kumanoâthe nearest shipâand scored several damaging hits. During her five-minute sprint into torpedo range, Johnston fired over 200 rounds at the enemy, thenâunder the direction of torpedo officer Lieutenant Jack K. Bechdelâmade her torpedo attack. She got off all 10 torpedoes, then turned to retire behind a heavy smoke screen. When she came out of the smoke a minute later, Kumano could be seen burning furiously from a torpedo hit; her bow had been blown completely off, and she was forced to withdraw. Around this time, Johnston took three 14 in (360 mm) shell hits from KongĹ, followed closely by three 6 in (150 mm) shellsâfrom either a light cruiser or Yamatoâwhich hit the bridge. The hits resulted in the loss of all power to the steering engine and all power to the three 5-inch guns in the aft part of the ship, and rendered the gyrocompass useless. A low-lying squall came up, and Johnston “ducked into it” for a few minutes of rapid repairs and salvage work. The bridge was abandoned and Commander Evansâwho had lost two fingers on his left handâwent to the aft steering column to conn the ship.
At 07:50, Admiral Sprague ordered destroyers to make a torpedo attack: “small boys attack”. Johnston, unable to keep position with her damaged engine, and with her torpedoes already expended, nonetheless moved to provide fire support for the other destroyers. As she emerged from a smoke screen, she nearly collided with fellow destroyer Heermann. At 08:20, Johnston sighted a KongĹ-class battleshipâonly 7,000 yd (6,400 m) awayâemerging through the smoke. The destroyer opened fire, scoring multiple hits on the superstructure of the much larger ship. The return fire from the battleship missed clearly.
Johnston soon observed Gambier Bay under fire from an enemy cruiser, and engaged the cruiser in an effort to draw her fire away from the carrier. Johnston scored four hits on the heavy cruiser, then broke off as the Japanese destroyer squadron was seen closing rapidly on the American escort carriers. Johnston engaged the lead ship until it quit, then the second until the remaining enemy units broke off to get out of effective gun range before launching torpedoes, all of which missed. Then, Johnston’s luck ran out; she came under heavy fire from multiple enemy ships, and right when it was most needed, the damaged remaining engine quit, leaving her dead in the water.
Under attack from all sides [edit]The enemy ships closed in for an easy kill, pouring fire into the crippled destroyer. Johnston took a hit which knocked out one forward gun and damaged another, and her bridge was rendered untenable by fires and explosions resulting from a hit in her 40 mm ready ammunition locker. Evansâwho had shifted his command to Johnston’s fantailâwas yelling orders through an open hatch to men turning her rudder by hand. Crewmen from the destroyer escort Samuel B. Roberts spotted Evans at the fantail, asking “isn’t that their captain”, waving to them with what they did not realize was his only good hand.
At one of her batteries, a crewman kept calling “More shells! More shells!”[2] Still the destroyer battled to keep the Japanese destroyers and cruisers from reaching the five surviving American carriers: “We were now in a position where all the gallantry and guts in the world couldn’t save us, but we figured that help for the carrier must be on the way, and every minute’s delay might count…. By 9:30 we were going dead in the water; even the Japanese couldn’t miss us. They made a sort of running semicircle around our ship, shooting at us like a bunch of Indians attacking a prairie schooner. Our lone engine and fire room was knocked out; we lost all power, and even the indomitable skipper knew we were finished. At 9:45 he gave the saddest order a captain can give: ‘Abandon Ship.’… At 10:10 Johnston rolled over and began to sink. A Japanese destroyer came up to 1,000 yards and pumped a final shot into her to make sure she went down. A survivor saw the Japanese captain salute her as she went down. That was the end of Johnston.”[2]
From Johnston’s complement of 327 officers and men, only 141 were saved. Of the 186 men lost, about 50 were killed out-right by enemy action, 45 men later died on rafts from wounds; and 92 menâincluding Cmdr. Evansâgot off Johnston before she sank, but were never heard from again.
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidates for next year’s General Election pictured (from left to right) Fred Macdonald (Otaki), Alistair Gregory (Rongotai), Richard Goode (Mana) and Michael Appleby (Wellington Central).
ALCP Leader Michael Appleby is also our candidate in the forthcoming Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election to be held on 29 June. Today Michael announced his candidacy and launched the ALCP campaign.
David Shearer’s comment that the Labour Party will “terrorise our political opponents” during its Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election campaign is “reprehensible”, a candidate for the seat says.
In a press release announcing Labour’s candidate Meka Whaitiri’s official campaign launch, the Labour leader said: “Labour will campaign relentlessly to once again earn the trust of the people of Ikaroa-Rawhiti.
“We will organise, mobilise and terrorise our political opponents.”
The leader of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, Michael Appleby, who was at Parliament today to launch his by-election campaign, said Labour should apologise over the comment.
“Threatening terrorism against opponents is offensive and unacceptable in a democratic by-election and the comments are extremely insensitive to the Tuhoe settlement which occurred today at Parliament,” he said.
He said Shearer’s comments were “outrageous, offensive and unacceptable”.
“I do not want to be terrorised just for standing up for my political beliefs,” Appleby said.
Thanks, Michael, for standing up for Truth, Freedom and Justice! đ
At tomorrow night’s meeting of the New Inklings, the paper for discussion is Derek Parfit’s classic Personal Identity, first published in The Philosophical Review in 1971.
Parfit uses many examples seemingly inspired by Star Trek and other science fiction, such as the teletransporter, to explore our intuitions about our identity. He is a reductionist, believing that since there is no adequate criterion of personal identity, people do not exist apart from their components. Parfit argues that reality can be fully described impersonally; there need not be a determinate answer to the question “Will I continue to exist?” We could know all the facts about a person’s continued existence and not be able to say whether the person has survived. He concludes that we are mistaken in assuming that personal identity is what matters; what matters is rather Relation R: psychological connectedness (namely, of memory and character) and continuity (overlapping chains of strong connectedness).
On Parfit’s account, individuals are nothing more than brains and bodies, but identity cannot be reduced to either. Parfit concedes that his theories rarely conflict with rival Reductionist theories in everyday life, and that the two are only brought to blows by the introduction of extraordinary examples. However, he defends the use of such examples because they seem to arouse genuine and strong feelings in many of us. Identity is not as determinate as we often suppose it is, but instead such determinacy arises mainly from the way we talk. People exist in the same way that nations or clubs exist.
A key Parfitian question is: given the choice of surviving without psychological continuity and connectedness (Relation R) or dying but preserving R through the future existence of someone else, which would you choose?
Parfit described the loss of the conception of a separate self as liberating:
My life seemed like a glass tunnel, through which I was moving faster every year, and at the end of which there was darkness… [However] When I changed my view, the walls of my glass tunnel disappeared. I now live in the open air. There is still a difference between my life and the lives of other people. But the difference is less. Other people are closer. I am less concerned about the rest of my own life, and more concerned about the lives of others.
Needless to say, I’m with Parfit on this one. His view is both liberating and … dare I say it, Christian.
(Or, at least, conducive to a Christian way of life.) (But with some startling implications for some Christian views of salvation.)
Here’s the Parfitian question again.
Given the choice of
(1) surviving without psychological continuity and connectedness (Relation R), or
(2) dying but preserving R through the future existence of someone else,
which would you choose? (Hint: what matters is Relation R.)
Pray for Liberty!…
“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
St Paul (1Tim2vs1-4)
A member of The Christian libertarians (new) facebook page asked the following question… supplying a Multi-choice answer format in which you could add your own answers.
“From what fundamental principle(s) do you base your libertarian political principles?”
The Golden Rule…27 votes.
Private Property …12 votes.
The answer I added….Grace gospel = individualistic self government and voluntary association…7 votes.
Argumentation ethics… 1 vote.
The Non-Aggression Principle….23 votes.
Jesus is Lord and Caesar is Not…4 votes.
Pragmatic (libertarianism is best for society)…3 votes.
The Constitution…3 votes.
Old Testament Law…1 vote.
I ticked the Golden rule, and Private property, and also added my own option… Grace Gospel… (see above)
I then qualified my answers in the comments…
“Paul’s Gospel of grace is a personal invitation to the individual sinner for salvation, in which he voluntarily joins the ‘private association’ of the ‘Fellowship of the mystery’, and chooses of his own freewill to make Christian values his own, thus all of his/her good works, charity flow from this voluntary basis, not from any form of legalistic compulsion. … threat of political punishments or prohibitions.
Thus ‘Religious liberty’ is the essential principle, so that we are free to follow our own conscience, and private property is necessary as giving us the place to practice and preach our faith in peace and safety.
This ‘free society’ is to be distinguished both from Jewish Legalistic Nationalism, and from Christ’s and Peters Political gospel of ‘National Salvation’ for Israel via the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom Rule… in which there is no Religious liberty, because the True God will be on Earth.
Contrary to the Gospel of the Kingdom, Paulâs gospel of grace and the Christian fellowship of the mystery do not require compulsory membership of others, or for us to impose our values upon others by force (or Law), and establishes the framework for Peace with others with whom peaceful Libertarian coexistence is possible, Equality, and freedom, and thereby naturally fulfills the Golden rule.
In this freedom sinners may choose to receive the gift of Godâs grace, or to reject it and remain âoutsideâ the church and live in sin⌠as long as they donât impinge upon our religios liberty, or threaten our lives and property. It is not for us to lock up Prostitutes, drug dealers, Homosexuals, adulterers, etc. They shall reap what they sow, and ultimately shall face the judgment of God.
It is for us to preach the Gospel of Grace, and to set an example of Godâs love for mankind via charity and good works, and to prove the benefits of living by the Inner moral compass of Personal Christian ethics voluntarily imbibed, as superior to Anti freedom nationalistic Socially dictated/ imposed moral legalism
**********************************
Religious liberty is the fundamental principle of the Gospel of God’s grace, and we ought to be praying for freedom to live by our own convictions, and to peacefully practice, preach, and teach our faith, Print our Bibles, Build our schools and other charitible institutions, etc.
We are not attempting to establish Gods Kingdom on Earth, because we know that *Only Christ* can achieve that… at his second comming.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
The Late great Francis Schaeffer has this to say about Libertarian Rights and Liberties…
Some people try and deny we have any freewill, or control over what we Believe or accept, yet I reject this.
I say that we are responsible for what we believe because we incrementally condition ourselves step by step, via our desire to know, or our desire to avoid knowing, and this grows into such an edifice that it can be a highplace from which the whole world can be Surveyed accurately… seeing it as it really is, or a self imposed ignorance can settle like a heavy fog completely blinding us from the truth.
This latter condition is all too common… the millions who have placed scales upon their own eyes so that the truth seems completely alien… completely ‘unreal’…. then they cry? How can I be blamed for not being able to believe?
They pretend they are the victims of circumstances… instead of being a victim of their own ignorant and foolish choices.
The same can be said of Hardness of heart.
As we go through life we all face times of horror and hurt, and one of the ways people seek to survive on this earth is to ‘harden up’… to stop themselves caring so much about things which they cant control, ..etc, yet this process is very dangerous… It is Dehumanizing, and we can build such ‘A Wall’ about ourselves that we become completely insensitive to the plight of humanity, and incapable of perceiving the real Moral issues and dilemmaâs of life. And this hardness also blinds the individual to the need to seek Personal salvation, or to reform the world.
Yet again We are not victims of the world.
Our hard hearts are of our own creation, and we are morally responsible for our own lack of conscience and Narcissism.
We have freely created ourselves.
When you admit this to yourself you can then choose to awaken and walk with your eyes open and your heart restored.
This can be painful and taxing, yet it is the moral thing to do, as opposed to shirking morality and truth.
Dare You stand in the light of day?
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
(But first, check out the Republican Movement’s logo above. What is it? A stylised letter ‘R’? A misshapen black nodule? Or a badly drawn smiling frog-face? Whatever it is, our people do not want it disgracing our national flag.)
The case for a New Zealand republic sets out the main arguments for why New Zealand should become a republic. They fall into three categories:
Independence â New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state; Nationhood â the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand’s national identity, culture and heritage; Democracy â New Zealand should have a democratic and accountable head of state.
In this post, I’ll take a look at the Republicans’ argument that we need a New Zealander as the head of State, under the heading “Independence”.
Independence
New Zealand will not be fully independent until we have a New Zealander as head of state. New Zealand likes to think of itself as an independent country. However, it cannot objectively be argued New Zealand’s current head of state represents this.
Never mind the head of state. New Zealand will not be fully independent while half of its citizens are dependent on state welfare. That’s a much bigger problem to address.
As the United Kingdom’s one-time head of state, Margaret Thatcher, once said, “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour.” How are we to look after our neighbour when we, ourselves, are reliant on government largesse? New Zealand society will never be independent until such time as its men and women and families are no longer reliant on state welfare handouts and “tax breaks”.
Add to this the fact that the New Zealand’s external debt is the vicinity of $90 billion dollars. We have a long way to go before we can declare our financial independence from foreign lenders.
A republic means a New Zealander as head of state
“Is New Zealand to continue to have an appointed Governor-General… or should we move to an elected president? This will not happen because of any lack of affection or love for our Queen in London, but because the tide of history is moving in one direction.” – former Prime Minster Jim Bolger.
Do we really want someone like Jim Bolger as our head of state? Or Margaret Thatcher? Or John Key?
I’m not a stalwart royalist like my mum, but I’m more than happy with the Queen. Next to spending time with my family, Her Majesty’s message is the highlight of my Xmas Day. (BTW, Happy Birthday Your Majesty!)
Our current head of state is not a New Zealander and does not represent New Zealand. When the Queen travels overseas, she does so in order to represent Great Britain.
The Queen works to strengthen British economic and political ties, and does whatever the British Government asks of her. In fact, whenever “our” head of state visits New Zealand, the Queen has to ask for permission from the British Government to leave Britain.
You have got to be kidding. She’s the Queen! Her subjects answer to her, she doesn’t answer to them!
If the Queen wanted to be a citizen of New Zealand, she would not meet the legal requirements to become a citizen. The Citizenship Act 1977 requires an applicant for New Zealand citizenship to have been resident in New Zealand for five years before citizenship is granted. The Queen has spent a total of no more than six months in New Zealand.
The Governor-General is not a proper head of state. While the Governor-General may increasingly act in ways that befit a head of state, the reality is that New Zealand is still not regarded as being fully independent of Great Britain. Appointing the Queen’s representative in New Zealand is inadequate. A New Zealand head of state will make it clear that New Zealand is an independent country. It will signal New Zealand’s independence and maturity to the world.
I’ll be honest. I don’t actually know who the current Governor-General is. And that’s exactly how it should be. A head of state so off the radar that only Wikipedia knows his or her true identity.
Deciding the rules for ourselves
In recent years, the British Parliament has attempted to amend the succession law. The problem is the Statute of Westminster 1931, the law which granted independence to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Oops! Looks like the Republicans just shot themselves in the foot. By their own admission, New Zealand has already been granted independence!
The Statute requires “consultation” on changes to the succession before any changes to the succession law. While this provision is not binding, it is still an important constitutional convention. The most recent attempt in 2008 failed for this reason: the British Government did not want to have to consult with all the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms. New Zealand’s Parliament could change the law of succession unilaterally, but that would go against the convention established by the Statute of Westminster. Change can only be enacted if the governments of all the 15 Commonwealth realms are consulted, probably by Britain. In a republic, the rules governing New Zealand’s head of state will be made solely by the New Zealand Parliament. They will change as New Zealanders decide they need to, not because of events in Great Britain.
Er, well, that’s it. Pretty lame, huh. (Part 1 of 3.) So far, I’m fully not convinced that New Zealand needs to become a republic. And, as I commented on Facebook yesterday
Why do we need “a New Zealand republic with an independent head of State.” I can’t think of a good reason. Change? Why change? Haven’t you people got more pressing concerns?