OPINION
Tani Newton
Well, it’s that time – time to have our say to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into I-can’t-bear-to-say-what. I’ve only got as far as commenting on expanding the terms of reference, but I thought I’d share what I’ve written in case it can inspire someone else. Here is the link for commenting:
I’ve specifically not mentioned any pharmaceutical products in what I think should be included and I’ve done that intentionally. I know this topic is important to many people and that many deserve recognition and compensation for harm. But nevertheless I still feel that this is not what we need to talk about. Important as it is to address and, much as those in charge don’t want to talk about it, it nevertheless brings us back into the arena of a health discussion and that’s not what this is.
What is happening is an all-out war on individual rights and national sovereignty, carried out under the guise of tender concern for everybody’s health. Health is not the issue.
The fact that so many people’s health has been affected is shocking and terrible and should be addressed. But that must not be allowed to distract us from the fact that this is not a health discussion.
Anyway, this is what I said:
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry.
I applaud and welcome the decision to expand the terms of reference, and I would support the inclusion of all of these topics, except the last one, as I do not think that ‘preparedness’ is the issue, but rather what happened.
I would suggest that further terms of reference should be added, such as:
- why the New Zealand Government’s own already existing pandemic plan was completely ignored
- why the WHO’s already existing pandemic recommendations were completely ignored
- the use of psychological warfare techniques by governments against citizens
- the deliberate use of fear as a tactic to obtain mass compliance
- the use of a declared crisis as a rationale for overriding the rule of law
- the use of a declared crisis as a rationale for enacting totalitarian legislation which remains in law
- the reliance on a minute number of under-qualified ‘experts’ who did not inspire confidence that they would advise anything other than what the government wanted them to advise, effectively acting as an echo chamber
- the serious and sometimes draconian actions taken to silence people, including highly experienced and knowledgeable doctors, who asked questions or offered alternative points of view
- whether it should continue to be an acceptable practice for doctors and other health professionals to be dictated to by bureaucracy in terms of how they advise their patients
- the effect on media balance and objectivity of the government’s generous ‘relief’ grants to them
- why censorship has now become acceptable
- why serious conflicts of interest in high places are consistently ignored, and why anyone pointing out conflicts of interest is called a conspiracy theorist
- why Jacinda Ardern’s Government acted in accordance with the interests of billionaire globalists, and not of their own country
- whether it should reasonably be considered treason when the government of a country betrays that country to overseas interests
- why Jacinda Ardern is still being employed by the present Government in the area of censoring dissent
- whether New Zealand should have any connection with the WHO Pandemic Treaty, and whether signing such a treaty should reasonably be considered treason
- who our political leaders are actually working for, and why?
I have little to no hope that the present Inquiry will address many of these topics or provide any serious answers, but I put on record my belief that these are the matters that need to be addressed. I did not vote in the election and I continue to have no confidence in the political process. However, I believe in the essential goodness of human society and of civil government as an institution of God, and I would be delighted to have my trust restored. I wish the commission all the best as they carry out their tasks.