Yesterday, in a concerted push to address the building narrative that Jacinda Ardern is a tyrant, the NZ Herald and Newshub both republished an article from The Conversation by scold Suze Wilson trying to prove that people who call her a tyrant are either a) misogynists or b) sexist, or both.
The tags on the original article show what it was all about:
The article is also co-branded with Massey University where Wilson works as a senior lecturer in the School of Management. Her articles at The Conversation are heavily biased in favour of Jacinda Ardern.
The article is extraordinarily base and biased. The language used is extremely pejorative and scolding.
At no point does it consider that the public’s dislike for the Prime Minister stems from an independent critical analysis of her failure to deliver on promises she’s made. New Zealanders have grown tired of her spin and won’t accept it any longer.
During the recent illegal occupation of parliament grounds, the apparent hatred was fully evident. There were ludicrous claims the Prime Minister is a mass murderer, and demands she be removed from office and executed for “crimes against humanity”.
Even on the supposedly professional social networking site LinkedIn, false claims that Ardern is a “tyrant” or “dictator” have been increasingly commonplace. For those making such claims, factual, constitutional, electoral and legal realities seemingly hold no weight.
Suze Wilson, The Conversation
Her own claims are ludicrous. Firstly, even Police acknowledged that the protest was lawful.
Now let’s look at the merits of calling Jacinda Ardern a tyrant. The author of this misinformation piece is clearly of the opinion that this is a false claim.
So, as the media love to do, let’s fact check that, starting with the dictionary definition of a tyrant.
Is Jacinda Ardern an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution? While she was elected, twice, the second time with a parliamentary majority, she does in fact rule without a constitution. New Zealand has no constitution, and is really governed by convention and a series of statutes:
New Zealand’s constitution is not found in one document. Instead, it has a number of sources, including crucial pieces of legislation, several legal documents, common law derived from court decisions as well as established constitutional practices known as conventions. Increasingly, New Zealand’s constitution reflects the Treaty of Waitangi as a founding document of government in New Zealand.
As for being unrestrained by law, there is ample evidence in Ardern’s recent history of acting illegally, or unrestrained by law. The most glaring piece of evidence was the illegal locking down of the entire nation, news of which we were instrumental in breaking. A court even found that the lockdown was illegal. The latest piece of evidence was the illegal mandate for vaccinations for Police and the Defence Force.
The regime Ardern leads has been busted multiple times acting illegally. This High Court ruling has been missed by most of the media. In summary:
[146] I am unable to accept the first and second respondents’ submission that the review of the Epidemic Notice is sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement of continuing necessity of the Order. Nor is it sufficient that the Order was presented to the House and subject to its scrutiny pursuant to ss 16 and 18 of the Epidemic Preparedness Act. That process involves parliamentary scrutiny within six sitting days after the day an IMO is made. If we have learned anything from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is that circumstances can change rapidly. What was appropriate in April 2020 may no longer be warranted in February 2022.
Basically, the court case was about the government using its pandemic powers to roll over collective contracts to help its pals in the union. The court basically said that might have been justified in early 2000, but there had been no assessment as to whether it remained justified in 2021 or 2022.
We mustn’t forget her abrogation of the Bill of Rights that gives New Zealand citizens unfettered access to their own country. Countless thousands of Kiwis were shut out of their own country, effectively and deliberately rendered stateless by an uncaring regime. Meanwhile, foreign entertainers seemingly gained easy access to the country. People were left saying goodbye to dying parents via Zoom or Skype.
We also cannot forget the misery that was MIQ, effectively imprisoning people even though they were never sick. As cases mounted in the community it became farcical in the extreme to see Kiwis locked up in MIQ, without a care for the Bill of Rights.
These are the sorts of high-handed actions that a tyrant takes when the rule of law doesn’t suit their desires. This regime and Ardern as its leader have been caught breaking the law time and time again.
It can also be claimed that with the push for their Three Waters reforms, essentially handing control of all New Zealander’s water to an elite group of un-elected Iwi leaders, is usurping sovereignty.
Also, making granting of funding for media dependent on media organisations subscribing and promoting a legal and constitutional fiction – that effectively rewrites the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi – is similarly usurping sovereignty.
Which leaves us with the remaining definition, a ruler who exerts power oppressively or brutally. The evidence, in this case, is overwhelming: from the enforcement of lockdowns; the arrest, detention and prosecution of people for the high crime of not wearing a mask, or walking the dog in the wrong place, or even daring to actually open their business. Then there was the brutal suppression of peaceful protestors on the very steps of Parliament.
No one will forget the use of pepper spray, nightsticks, riot police, tear gas and baton rounds launched from 40 mm grenade launchers.
And no one will forget seeing Police break the law using pepper spray, fire extinguishers and bricks against protesters, as well as the eye-gouging and brutality exerted by the forces of the state against peaceful protesters, who just wanted to be heard.
There is the fact that the Police Commissioner was “incredibly proud” of the brutality his troops displayed.
Then there are those who have suffered from losing their jobs, their businesses or been fined for operating businesses in contravention of the draconian health mandates of the regime. Under the coercive powers of the state, whether they were Worksafe under the guise of Health and Safety rules or the strong arm of the Police, people have been effectively cowed by the fines, mandates and compulsory health orders.
So back to the question at hand. Is Jacinda Ardern a tyrant?
Is she
- An absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution? Clearly this is true. Ignoring the Bill of Rights, Breaking the law, overriding peoples human rights, with almost no recourse under the law. Guilty as charged.
- An usurper of sovereignty? Making Kiwis stateless, Three Waters, and shoving through a patently false narrative regarding the Treaty of Waitangi. Guilty as charged.
- A ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally. We have all seen the footage. Guilty as charged.
- One resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power? There is plenty of evidence of this, most notably the harsh fines and prison sentences for daring to not wear a mask, or not complying with mandates, illegal or otherwise, and for daring to operate a business against the draconian health orders of the tyrant. Guilty as charged.
So is Jacinda Ardern a tyrant?
If Jacinda Ardern were just a dictator then we wouldn’t be in as much danger as we are in right now. Dictators tend to relax pressure on their population once they achieve control. Ardern is doing the opposite, which is more in line with a tyrant, or a totalitarian leader.
The more people that keep speaking out, the safer everyone is. The protest helped a lot, opened people’s eyes and minds and got them talking about things Ardern did not want them talking about. It set her back enormously, which is why the articles like NZ Herald’s republished The Conservation piece from the scold Suze Wilson have started appearing. The truth hurts.
But most definitely, actually, constitutionally, electorally and legally, she is a tyrant.
She may not be wearing jodhpurs, or jackboots, but she is a tyrant nonetheless.
Please share this article so others can discover The BFD.