A graduate of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum’s young globalist leaders programme, Ardern’s rule of New Zealand has provided insight on the future of human rights and democracy in the WEF’s projected new world order.

This was glaringly illustrated by her response to the so-called Covid pandemic. Although geographically isolated and remote, she compelled a total lockdown of both islands based on a handful of cases which were probably false positives from the PCR test.

Then she treated 50,000 Kiwis as detainees. They had been out of the country and wanted to get home. But they found themselves stranded as Ardern allowed only 5,000 a month to return and then subjected them to the following treatment: They had to pay $3,100 to stay in a government-run quarantine hotel for 14 days. During that time they were under military guard and allowed out of their rooms for only one hour a day.

Ardern overruled scientific advice which opposed her vaccine mandate and its application to children. She ignored the country’s Bill of Rights and saw to it that Kiwis were hounded into being vaxxed – hence the appellation she earned: Jabcinda.  Like the Fascists of the 1920s, she ruled by regulation, not by constitutional law.

Her draconian insistence on vaxxing, despite warnings of the untested contents of the jab, resulted in New Zealand posting one of the highest per capita daily infection rates with Omnicron by March 2022,  thereby attesting to the fact that the jab depletes natural immunity.

Another insight of Ardern’s Fascist direction was her use of state funds to acquire control over New Zealand’s press and electronic media. Replicating what the Biden regime has done in America, on her orders dissenters were discredited and labelled as “terrorists” (see: infonews.co.nz).

As a proponent of decarbonisation, Ardern imposed a raft of regulations on farmers to decrease bovine methane emissions, despite the fact that methane is not carbon dioxide. She promised the delivery of 100,000 new homes in accommodation-scarce New Zealand. Only 1,500 homes have been completed.

In all of this, Ardern was shamelessly supported by those who postured as her political opposition which goes to show how weak democracy and constitutional law is in New Zealand.

Ironically, to cap it all, Ardern’s parting wish is that she be remembered as “someone who tried to be kind.” Her record suggests otherwise. Her successor, Chris Hipkins, has left no doubt that he intends to continue her policies. As his first priority he wants to track down all the unvaxxed.

The post Ardern’s Dark Record appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.

The aim of decolonisation, he notes, is part of transformation, and as such “genuine transformation is essential for the health and survival of our democracy.” But our constitution is premised on a multi-party system of democracy in which democratic values and freedom are enshrined (sections 1 and 7).

The health of our democracy cannot be promoted by discarding the values and heritage of any section of society.

A case in point is the concern raised by IFP national chairman Blessed Gwala about Ulundi and the fact that despite its historical significance it has been neglected (Daily News, January 25).

According to Devenish, decolonisation involves “more than merely changing names of buildings and the removal of statues.” In other words, decolonisation means disposing of history, heritage and culture that originated as a result of colonialism. Although he always specifies his role in the drafting of the interim constitution in 1993, the fact that Devenish apparently supports decolonisation is intriguing.

For section 9 of the 1996 constitution, under the Bill of Rights, prohibits discrimination against culture. (Of course, section 9 (5) attempts to provide some wiggle room on this by stating that such provision could be modified if “ it is established that the discrimination is fair.”)

Be that as it may, the preamble of the constitution exhorts all to “respect those who have worked to build and develop our country.”

Thus, we have a contradiction in terms.

The idea of decolonisation is fraught with contradiction, confrontation, and hypocrisy. That is reality. It cannot unmake the past and within the context of the global village, it can only have a stultifying effect in terms of tertiary education.

Published in The Daily News

The post DECOLONISATION: A Cocktail Of Controversy appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.