Beyond Brexit: The Morning After

The 'liberal' arm of the Western media alongside its illegitimate half-brother, the establishment intelligentsia - aka 'the elite' - really has its knickers in a knot this time, and understandably so. Having formed an unholy huddle, they are literally beside themselves, in an ungodly haste, as they rather desperately seek to reconcile themselves to, let alone accept, a very inconvenient truth: a few days ago they lost the Brexit vote - and not just by the skin of their teeth. So we now have the spectacle of some of their number - a limited group, admittedly, and even fewer leading figures amongst them - hastily engaging in the extremely unseemly, unedifying spectacle of publicly raising hell and high water over a result they can barely stomach. This while conflating each and every possible short- and long-term ramification and permutation of especially their doomsday economic repercussions issuing from the United Kingdom's still astonishing 'take the world (and punters) by storm' decision to exit the European Union late last week.

In this highly undignified process - spurred on to new depths by self-appointed media, including some of NZ's own correspondents in the UK - we see folk unprepared to leave any stone, rock or pebble even unturned in their quest to magnify each and every apparent instance of 'democracy gone wrong', whether later regrets and misgivings by less committed exit voters, alleged broken or lying-through-one's-teeth promises by Brexit campaigners themselves, and supposedly too narrow a vote margin to warrant a proper 'mandate' in such a constitutionally all-important issue, to name the main ones. Conceding that the last of these doubtless would have more than a semblance of merit were those the long-time, well-established pre-conditions of referenda in the UK per se - for example, one British Bremainer's claim that all such decisions be approved by at least 60% of voters provided a 75% turnout was obtained  - any half-awake onlooker however cannot but 'retort' that everyone knew the score before the vote took place to begin with, and so it's a teeny-weeny bit late to cry spilt milk at this stage of proceedings.

Moreover, as New Zealand's inimitable television personality and political commentator Paddy Gower, on TV3's The Nation this morning, in answer to someone posing the hypothetical question, '[But] is it[i.e. the referendum result] a[n] [actual] mandate?' replied: "Yes, it's a mandate...In a democracy you only need 50.1%, and they[i.e. the Brexiters] got it...so, yes, they [do] have a mandate." And a much more comfortable margin - and hence mandate - than 50.1%, it must surely be conceded. But in the frantic attempt to somehow or other invalidate what has taken place, we are seeing far more desperate manoeuvres still, and far less plausible ones.

Some such as TV3's well-known reporter and presently UK correspondent 'on the [referendum] ground', Tova O'Brien, are visibly extremely upset, even livid with how things have gone. Thus - among various remarks about the feeling supposedly now pertaining on the streets of the UK, or at least the strongly pro-Bremain city of London where O"Brien was stationed - we had her echoing the claim that many UK referendum voters simply didn't know what they were doing, citing especially heavy traffic upon an internet site in the immediate aftermath of the vote. Thus the allegation that such 'traffic' was especially noticeable - apparently scoring most hits over recent days - around the questions 'What is the EU?'; '*and 'Who's [actually] in the EU?' somehow could be taken for a given that Brexit voters didn't really know what they were doing full stop.

What utter piffle, and exceedingly unscientific to boot. As if correlation ipso pronto can be taken as proof of causation! Not to mention the possibility of deliberate spiking by Bremainers to give this very impression in the aftermath of the vote, and thus seek to readily and speedily discredit and thus invalidate it. Indeed, it's in what this late rearguard action by the Bremainers signifies and reveals that's the real problem.

Such journos seem wholly unable to straddle that old standby of the trade, a thing called objectivity and balance. A rather obvious thing I know, and usually simply automatically assumed of any and every journalist. But increasingly less evident on all manner of media fronts, completely irrespective of ideological or politically partisan standpoint. Personally, while reporting for and eventually editing my high school's student paper for four years that was considered rather basic: a must, an essential, an absolute requirement if you will. But perhaps journalism no longer demands that? It would appear not.

But in a far more general sense we've been presented with the scene of individual media supposedly bowling up and randomly stopping ye average citizenry in the streets. Folk who, it now all too conveniently appears, were extremely unwitting voters for exiting Europe. However now 'all is forgiven', they see the extreme error of their recalcitrant ways. And all this is gleefully dragged up by such journos as if to somehow prove the entire vote process, and thus outcome, a complete fraud. That people didn't really know what they were doing, and so, ipso facto, the referendum result doesn't count; that it's in effect invalid.

The implication thus clearly being that many Brexiters on the day - or at the very least sufficient to have effectively swayed the result the other way - were somehow fooled, hoodwinked, almost coerced against their will and better judgment, into voting in a way that they suddenly, 'miraculously', the morning after, now see to have been a delusion, a great, almost unforgivable mistake and error of judgment.Or so the narrative seems to run.Yes, the entire nation's been sold a fraudulent bill of goods, and it stinks to high heaven, and we're simply not going to put up with it.

As if the prospect of plenty of voters post-election (or referendum) - whether sooner or later - with 'buyer's remorse' is somehow a new or unusual phenomenon, or even for that matter would necessarily be confined to Brexit supporters. As if a similar number of 'Bremainers' couldn't have been dragged out of the proverbial woodwork regretting they weren't on the winning side, regretting that they too hadn't supported the historic move to leave the European Union.  

And now, for the very latest, we have the unbelievable prospect of people flailing about to somehow get a new poll, or at least an on-line petition presumably demanding such, to reverse a referendum result they simply find unpalatable. It would seem pretty well every man, woman, canine and moggy available is hastily being requisitioned to call for, nay, to verily demand a re-vote. Or so some mischief-making media and vocal Bremainers would have us all believe.

Isn't 'democracy' such a pain in the neck, as well as in the proverbial?!?! That is, when(ever) it doesn't go quite the way one wants, when one doesn't get the result one was hoping for, and more often than not actually voted for? But of course! The point is, haven't we all been there at some time or other? And we know we need to bite our well-bloodied and bruised lip and 'simply suck it up', as some put it these days. Or as British export/ex-pat and former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Michael Cullen once memorably put it: "We won, you lost, (now) eat that!" (Or words to that effect.)

How about this for the much larger Brexit vote than expected?: doubtless it's far from a novel idea, but didn't something quite similar happen in the last British election, which was supposed to be much closer than it in fact was? And didn't pollsters, pundits and the like come to the conclusion that voters in pre-polling were simply embarrassed or ashamed - for whatever reason, presumably not wanting to seem prejudiced or overly conservative when responding to opinion pollsters - for voting the way they did? And so this newly-prevalent belief that the referendum really ought to have gone the other way is not just simply mistaken, if anything the margin would've been far larger - for leaving - were it not, as I maintain elsewhere, and doubtless numerous others do as well - for that awful, ghastly assassination of Labour M.P. Jo Cox. Yes, she really was - in every way, apparently - a model of political integrity and then some; a veritable shining light of a politician, despite her misguided - but thoroughly genuine, well-argued and admirably passionate - perspective on the Brexit referendum.

Excuse me if I'm somehow misinformed, but I've ever and always been under the impression that 'democracy' didn't always deliver the outcome one wanted, so one simply had to 'grin and bear it' as it were. And preferably with good grace, including and especially in conceding defeat. To his immeasurable credit British Prime Minister David Cameron, ever the statesman whatever one might think of his politics, readily did just that by quickly falling upon his sword. Likewise freshly-challenged Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in a similar spirit, in response to those on his (Bremain) side of the debate, claiming the 'result was too close to constitute a proper mandate', simply responded: "The people have spoken." And even German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been remarkably subdued if visibly almost biting her lip and keeping her own - vocal - oar out of the debate both pre- and post-referendum.

And whatever her views on the referendum one cannot but admire the ever eloquent, gutsy, stroppy and charismatic Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and her sheer nerve and verve in the aftermath of the two recent impacting referenda she's been involved in. Such altogether genuine staunchness, tenacity, and passionate conviction are oh so rare to see in any politician these days, yet Cameron himself rose to similar heights, at times, during the recent referendum. Which reminds me of another long-deceased politician or two with similar qualities, both British as it turns out.

Having been toppled upon this very issue, what would Margaret Thatcher have not given to have seen Friday's result? But someone she was often compared to, though most regard him as a monolith in stature above and beyond almost any other 20th Century politician, or rather statesman, and thus essentially and altogether in a league of his own - was of course Winston Churchill.      

Churchill was known for many things, not least his inspirational rallying words to a war-weary Britain in World War 11. He was also often noted as the author of a famous remark or three upon democracy. In one of these he characterized it as essentially a pretty cruddy system, with very little to show for its great claims. That was, until one stopped for a second and reflected upon all the others. And so one can only hope that, whatever bad feelings and disappointments some Britons and ex-pats feel over the Brexit vote, they take a leaf out of Winston's book, and accept that however flawed and problematic, democracy Westminster- and Western-style is still and ever remains the best of an admittedly bad bunch.

Yes, we all can and do feel genuine grief when life doesn't go all our own way, and naturally especially when we suffer great loss. In our confusion and tears we tend to lose our way at times. But perspective, they tell us, is everything. And so, lamenting Bremainers, I suggest you do what the Python crew once counselled: 'Al-ways lo-ok on the bri-ght si-de of life, (ditto, ditto)'. It sure makes life a whole lot easier in the long run. And as for the referendum just past, hey, you'll get over it as well...one day soon.
*Though I (originally) heard the second question as 'What does it mean to leave the European Union?'
Regardless, all such enquiries evidently signalling the supposed brain-deadness of Brexit voters, and thus, in one very fell and much-maligning swoop, automatically discrediting and invalidating their votes, suggesting they weren't even fit to cast one in the very first instance!

Free At Last - Free At Last - Thank the LORD, Britain is Great Again & Free At Last

Yippee!! Britain is free once more and can be great again. Independence Day has arrived at last!

May she now shine forth anew, in majestic splendour, in all her God-given glory, giving glory to the One Who has freed her from her servitude and favoured her with His own especial glory and honour. Her days and weeks and months and years and decades of hard servitude to faceless, unfriendly Eurocrats whose ultimate designs - including her as part of a United States of Europe submitting in obeisance and dutiful obedience to Europe's one-time masters and the centuries-long head thereof - I respectfully submit were anything but peaceable and godly.

I - and many others, I'm sure, scarcely believed it possible, and indeed were resigned today to an eventual loss...even the United Kingdom Independence Party leader himself. So fickle can voters be and so often disappointing are electoral results. But democracy has spoken, so to those on the losing side, I suggest it's best to accept that, as the old Western cowboy put it: 'Ya wins some and ya loses some.' But life goes on.

Congratulations - and Celebrations! Take a bow, you beauties - as Samwise Gamgee would say: "You've proven your [sterling] quality" this day.
 

Independence Day in the United Kingdom? Will Britain Become Great Again? Putting in a word for the value of independents and independent-thinking

As a mini-post sandwiched within my main brexit blogposts, on both this blogsite and my other, original one, i.e. http://nuffsaid:consideryourself-frombothsidesnow.blogspot.co.nz/ (or .com/), how about this for a novel idea? True, genuine independence of thought/attitude, conviction, expression and action is ever a sign of strength, never of weakness. Except perhaps in toddlers still going through potty training and the like. Or maybe in newly-minted adolescents being oppositional towards their parents for the sheer sake of it.

And so this is simply to place upon the record my unavoidable disdain and utter contempt for those so-called political pundits and their media fellow-travellers especially who have heartily enjoyed the recent spectacle of Boris Johnson and David Cameron et al (especially in the British Conservative Party) battling it out tooth and nail, hammer and tongs, in the public domain over the long-running Brexit debate and finally arrived referendum. Petty partisanship aside - which such commentators evince so easily it's much like kiddies drooling over anticipated ice-cream cones and chocolate chippies - but if such really believe, as they invariably profess in the very next breath, in the value of participatory democracy and the need to have intelligent, informed public debate upon important matters, then they should surely applaud such a spectacle. Yes, they may secretly hate and despise 'the Tories' and find the sight of them 'tearing each other to shreds' not only less than edifying but moreover a bit of a hoot to boot, but have they ever stopped to consider the following?

Isn't it really rather a refreshing contrast, especially compared to New Zealand in particular, to see the ruling government isn't simply crammed and stuffed full of yes-men and yes-women, who ever and always take their cues from the man (or less frequently, woman) at the top? Who actually display real independence of mind and outlook and are not so highly insecure that to defend the holy grail of 'unity at all costs' they constantly paper over any real or simply perceived differences? Or does God's Own by contrast have a bunch of John Key clones and/or robots rather than real men and women in our corridors of power?

If such had their way we and our world never would have seen the likes of Sir Winston Churchill bestride the corridors and ultimately annals of history, and I for one believe we'd have a far poorer world as a result. No, not materially poorer - and Mr Cameron (and Mr Key), there really are some things money cannot buy, and that matter a heckuva lot more than healthy finances, such as a healthy and noble independence of spirit and life - but I wager to guess the once great and glorious nation of Britain (and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) might have suffered a whole lot more from Hitler and his Nazis had Mr Churchill not been there at the time. Yep, true independence is a virtue and not a vice.

Hey, Milady Was Right All Along, Yes, the Iron Lady Was Right All Along...About Europe & the European Union, Anyhow

Yes, the freighted, fraught moment has now almost well and truly arrived, and come 48 hours or so, it'll be all over bar the shouting, and screaming, and stomping etcetera. But I 'speak' facetiously, and without the due moment such an occasion clearly deserves, however it transpires. An occasion, a decision linked with and to everything from the fall of Western or at least so-called European 'civilization' through to the long-feared and anticipated World War Three and its cataclysmic results. Yes indeed, so argue some of the protagonists involved, and seemingly every bit believers of their own hyperbolic spin and imaginative speculation.

And though the same of course accuse their opponents, the Brexiters, of  creative largesse equally bordering upon the fanciful and the fantastic, by for example appealing not only to terror-evoking mock-ups of swarming refugee hordes sweeping into and subsuming the British Isles but moreover to feared and loathed historical images of Hitler, Napoleon et al and their unhinged, unashamed and - for a time anyhow - seemingly unstoppable megalomaniacal fantasies of European and ultimately world domination and even subjugation, nevertheless the difference in content and degree - if admittedly not intensity - between the two sides I would suggest is anything but finely-balanced. And so, like the much-maligned Nigel Farage, the newly ridiculed as a mini-UK Trumpesque figure, the endearingly irascible and inimitable Boris Johnson - and their fellow-travellers - I would contend that evocations of the dystopian and even the frighteningly phantasmagoric(al) - *for the lay reader's 'information' (and Yours Truly's often challenged memory as well) '(eliciting or evoking) a fantastic series of illusive images' (et al) - is far more the province thus far of the Bremain brigade than the Brexiters. Inasmuch as 'the end of all things' as Tolkien's Sam Gamgee phrased it, or 'the end of the world' as many others have long described it, by a country mile methinks 'trumps' (again, any similarity to anyone else now living wholly unintended and purely a by-product of an occasionally challenged vocabulary) a tempestuous time in intra-national relations. (According to my longtime and ever trusty (1988 edition of the) Chambers Concise Dictionary.)

But where, oh where - my oh my oh my - does one possibly begin - much less end - in seeking to do justice to this now hugely contentious matter, one which has pretty well continuously dogged the steps, nipped at the heels of each and every pretender to the leadership mantle of the Tory (i.e. Conservative) Party of (the once - but no longer?) Great Britain since the days of their much-loved and equally-loathed but irrespective ever-memorable Margaret Thatcher herself. For who or which political junkie can soon forget the circumstances of the Iron Lady's demise those fateful days in 1990, just as the decades-long Cold War was finally being wrapped up good and proper; indeed just prior to the final and overwhelming episode in that exponentially escalating and accelerating anticlimax in superpower relations - the Fall of Communism in the Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R., and its rapid disintegration into fifteen republics of dramatically differing size, population, geography and economic and military power. Following all so quickly the citizens' uprising in and/or fall/breakup of one after another of what were aptly termed the 'domino nations' of the then Eastern Europe.

From the (11-year? - my guesstimate) nine-ten-and-a-half-*15-year struggle in Poland through the nine-month (actually four-and-a-half-five year) multi-layered often genocidal ethno-national crisis in (Yugoslavia?) through the nine-week (actually four-five days) fall of Czeckoslovakia to the nine-day (actually four-six-eleven month) implosion of Eastern Germany to the nine-hour (in fact eight to twenty-two to twenty-three month) capitulation of Hungary; on through the entire 'pack' of eight Eastern European satellite states including Romania (three to four days, similarly to Czechoslovakia) and Bulgaria (three months); Albania ever being the odd one out, and I'm still a bit unsure of its transition process and timeline.
Toppling just like a series of so many interconnected dominoes 'till they all fell down' as the nursery rhyme goes.

(*'De-communizing' events in Poland evidently began with a Workers Defence Committee being established in 1976, around four years before Lech Walesca's celebrated Solidarity Union showed up on the scene; and of course both Hungary and Czechoslovakia had major uprisings both ruthlessly suppressed back in the 50s and 60s. And as with Poland's pre-Solidarity history, I was also surprised to learn of an uprising of some note in East Germany back in 1953.And even the Soviet Union itself was seemingly no exception to this trend, effectively taking just four months when things really started to roll. But that's the point in a very real sense, for as is far better known internationally vis-a-vis the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics than in regards to any of its eight other 'satellite' Communist Bloc states, the process of reform began years before when Mikhail Gorbachev took the helm, even arguably decades earlier under the unpredictable regime of Nikita Khruschev.).  

 So the actual specific number of days, months and years involved in each of these nation's ideological transitions is really a matter of which particular events one focuses upon and therefore is somewhat of a subjective measure per se. (If my memory serves me aright, and it usually does, if admittedly occasionally forgoing me; since I can't presently relocate an excellent Time/Newsweek cover story or three on the same from that time period, I'll have to leave it at that for tonight.)***As it transpires now, I'll admit some degree of challenged status to that acclaimed memory, though due to the rather 'mixed and matched' chronologies I've thus far reviewed, it's really quite open to anyone's interpretation. Suffice it to say, however, that my distinct overall recollection was one of exponentially-accelerating events, and somewhere somehow I recall one particular digit/number, and then was dramatically impressed at the time as I saw how this applied to pretty well each and every one of the nations specified, only the particular 'unit' involved - be it years, months, weeks, days or hours - seemed to progressively shrink as time progressed and as the set of 'domino' nations went from a mere mini-spill or drip to a complete deluge.or rout.

Part Two: So What Did the Iron Lady Have Right, if not the Might to enact/enforce?

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Part Two (of two)

Yet as far as we know Mr Tanczos was never investigated for thus flagrantly transgressing well-known law, much less prosecuted for such. And so, as best we can surmise, he kept right on breaking the law [which declares marijuana an illegal substance and ipso facto the smoking, let alone possession thereof an illegal act], thus effectively declaring his contempt for the very law (in a general sense) that as a member of Parliament he was elected to - change, yes, if at all possible and advisable, but - first and foremost to uphold and affirm. And therefore legislation - as all the rest - Mr Tanczos, like the next person, could quite justifiably be expected to observe; indeed, law implicitly demanding the allegiance and obedience of all New Zealand's citizens, utterly irrespective of whether they voted Nandor (c/o his Green party list) into office or not. However, as again is well-known, or at least openly on the public record, Mr Tanczos was notorious for holding such an "Up yours!" attitude and approach - in relation to the orthodox establishment, that is - and this for me was only re-confirmed by two quite unrelated by equally pertinent - if wholly anecdotal - sources: one, an unofficial representative of a major and generally respected institution of our land (at least in times gone by); the other, involving a member of our extended family, or rather, as I prefer to put it, at present one of our various 'outlaws' (as opposed to in-laws). But of course I exaggerate.

If my memory serves me aright - and it usually does, whatever other multitudinous faults I'm evidently more than guilty of - the first occasion was either 'on the grapevine', as a matter of fairly general knowledge, or - much more likely - conveyed to me c/o Jim Mora's much-esteemed 4-5 p.m. weekday Panel on RNZ National - formerly National Radio - by a well-known New Zealander with pertinent connections in either our education and/or justice system. Whatever, so 'rumour' had it that NZ secondary school principals up and down our fair land were especially pissed off - not to put too fine a point upon it! - by Mr Tanczos' seeming open flouting of the dope-smoking law of the land; both by partaking of the nasty weed, and even more worryingly, by thus manifesting open contempt for and willingness, nay readiness to openly violate the very laws that he, as an elected member of Parliament, was elected to uphold. In the process setting a terrible and lamentable 'example' for school children throughout the length and breadth of our fair land to take up the habit, and moreover in school time and on school grounds, "and stuff the law and the cops"!

My 'out-law''s comment, on the other hand, was seemingly comparatively minor, and related to his apparently overhearing - alongside some others apparently during some 'gig' he was staging/hosting in our city (i.e.Dunedin) on a city street a good decade-and-a-half ago now - Mr Tanczos making a highly dismissive and disparaging remark about 'the cops'., the specific details of which I regretfully cannot recall. Which although clearly no hanging offence, nevertheless evinced the worrisome fact that he evidently did not hold 'the boys [and girls] in blue' in the sort of regard one might hope our elected representatives might; or at least - if they didn't - they might (hopefully) be far more discreet about or even simply keep to themselves. (Having long ago now left a phone message for him to confirm as much, one can only assume that that  seems to also be his own recollection of what he once shared with me.)

The - logical - upshot of all this to the long-time push - in certain quarters - for the legalization or at least decriminalization of cannabis? Or, rather, in this instance, to the medical marijuana debate, reignited over recent weeks in various ways such as by the likes of Helen Kelly and Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, and followed by discussion thereof by RNZ National in particular; but much more significantly two Sundays ago now on TV1's Sunday, where a full half-hour programme-length coverage was provided by host Maherangi Forbes, a show in which a former kiwi now residing in Colorado, America, was interviewed extensively about the situation now pertaining there, specifically with regards to the implications for New Zealand if we followed suit.

Before I - very shortly - do (elaborate upon the connection), let me lastly introduce yet another (very) 'high-profiler', if long (a half century almost) dead 'celebrity'/'mover and shaker' - and all the rest. Someone usually s/elected either by so-called experts or ye average citizenry (of especially the Western world) amidst the top handful of world-moving figures - for good (or ill, for that matter) - of the previous century. Who today ranks - alongside one of his mentors, India's nonviolence independence campaigner Mohammes (popularly known as Mahatma) Gandhi - as one of the 20th Century's foremost, indeed history's most highly regarded and respected political activists. The individual is of course none other than American 1960s civil rights leader Martin Luther King, a man who faced - and openly agitated against - a literal plethora of unjust and oppressive laws of his beloved U S of A. And who always argued ever so eloquently - by pen, speech and much more significantly by literally laying his life on the line over and over again regarding, before finally laying it down by losing it in the cause - against each and every one of those laws that he found so intolerable and even abhorrent.

But  - and here the chasm draws yawningly wide and deep between himself and the two political activists (Nandor Tanczos and Helen Kelly, that is) I've particularly singled in on - I'm too small-fry, for sure, to try to take on the eminent and venerable Helen Clark! - unlike those two (or so it appears, but may Ms Kelly prove an exception if it comes to that, which undoubtedly it won't) MLK was only too willing (and prepared), and of course saw this realized, as alluded to already, on various occasions such as his imprisonment in Alabama and the later firebombing of his Atlanta home - to be treated to and with the full force of the law if need be, for the inviolable principles he adamantly and unflinchingly stood for. Principles he ever saw as light years ahead of the laws of the land which then almost sacredly enshrined segregation and discrimination.

 Mr King believed that, in the final analysis, if one's cause be right and just, one must - just as the One he so admired and loved and ever sought to emulate, Jesus Christ Himself - be willing to suffer and even, if need be, die for those things one really, truly believes in. Much less suffer incarceration for the same. That, however unjust the law may well be, it is the law nonetheless, and so wields legitimate sway over the citizenry in a democratic land, however flawed. Even while 'doing despite' to said, selfsame law out of admirable nonconformity and noncompliance. Yet ever willing and prepared to suffer the consequences of said noncompliance - whatever these may well be.

And so I would contend that Ms Kelly (as Mr Tanczos in times past) has every reason to 'rail against' whatever laws  such may entirely justifiably have every reason to consider unjust. But unless such are also ultimately willing to 'come under' selfsame laws' temporal jurisdiction - in all their manifold ramifications - then they are merely echoing the sentiments of the original transgressor of all divine law, the archrebel Lucifer himself (or more aptly itself, for as CS Lewis ever so ably and eloquently argues, it's awfully hard to assign a gender to a .............- whatever he wrote!); yes, the sentiments and the motivating, actuating principles of 'the great dragon, that ancient serpent, called the devil, and Satan'. And thereby are holding all earthly laws likewise up to ridicule and contempt, and thus show they deserve no special favour/s from said law, the relevant legal authorities involved - and moreover its enforcers - whatsoever. However originally or ultimately 'just' their cause may well be.

Or, as someone - perhaps Aesop - once put it, 'what's good for the goose is (likewise) good (enough) for the gander'. Rather than the popular sentiment apparently ever growing in adherence - which sentiment incidentally was the title of an opinion piece on NZ's then - and arguably still present - culture of 'golden handshakes' to ex-/former-CEOs:  'if the government and cops are all crooks, you might as well be one too'! 

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: Part One (of two)

(Written 14th April, 2016)

So here we have it, once again: a(nother) declaration of absolute defiance - of the law of the land - and the evident, undisguised actions to match; on this occasion by Helen Kelly, former long-serving Secretary of the CTU, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.

But do I - can anyone, for that matter - really fault Ms Kelly, whether one identifies with or subscribes to her particular brand of left-wing unionist ideology or otherwise? Or who in their right mind, so to speak, if push came to shove - and upon virtually their death-bed, as it were - would not, in her situation, do the very same sort of thing? I.e. use whatever was available to one to save, maintain, and/or prolong one's life: to the very latest moment. Provided s/he felt that life was really still worth living, that is.

A rhetorical question if ever there were one, surely. Because equally certain is the answer of pretty well everyone, isn't it, wouldn't it be? Indeed. So again, can we really blame Ms Kelly for doing anything and everything in her increasingly disappearing power to prolong her life? Hardly.

And for that matter it seems a welcome and refreshing contrast to the endless hype our media has dished up to us over preceding months and years as to the need - the imperative supposedly - of bringing in voluntary euthanasia upon our kiwi populace. For here is someone - a high-profile personality, no less - who is evidently quite unprepared to simply lay down and die, or to unhesitatingly, submissively take the treatment meted out by New Zealand's orthodox medical fraternity as if it were the be-all-and-end-all, the final word as it were, on the all-important matter of one's personal health and well-being, and moreover in this instance of very survival itself. Someone with a mind to think and decide for herself, and the will to follow through with commensurate actions.

But here we once again are confronted with our originally-stated dilemma, are we not? That is, does not everyone - irrespective of background, position or status in our society - have the right, the privilege to be treated 'equally before the law'? Or put it another way - perhaps much more aptly, in this very instance - does anyone, again, irrespective of said background, position or status, have the privilege or right on the other hand to be given 'special treatment' before the law of the land? Which special treatment, favouritism quite bluntly, would arguably not be accorded Joe or Jane Average Citizen in the selfsame circumstances. 

The answer, I'm sure you'll readily agree, is most certainly not! No, a thousand times "no" - whatever the situation or circumstances. One only needs to recall the pro-euthanasia advocate, Lucretia Seales, also of Wellington, not all that long ago. And let's for now put to one side the ever-present possibility, indeed oftentimes reality, of 'police discretion' in our land.

No, what we are presented with here - and let's give her all due credit, Ms Kelly neither sought to deny nor downplay the reality of her law-breaking nor claim she ought not to suffer the appropriate consequences for disregarding and breaking the law - is nothing less than a flagrant and public, if nevertheless perfectly understandable in the circumstances, show of defiance toward our legal system itself. Essentially calling the bluff, as it were, in probably the well-justified assurance - which some might well term presumption, even arrogance - that, like the proverbial dog that's all bark and no bite, the authorities that be will just 'do the usual' and look the other way.

Seeing as Ms Kelly's such a well-known, high-profile figure and all. And especially since the likes of former Prime Minister and now would-be Secretary-General of the United Nations, Helen Clark - not to mention seemingly endless numbers of other high-profile New Zealanders - have almost invariably, pretty well to a woman or man, managed to escape the clutches of the justice system; which myself and many others, rather less endearingly - and with remarkably little effort - see as much more an injustice system; Yes indeed, 'justice' that others of us lesser mortals are never so fortunate - or 'blessed' if you prefer - as to be able to evade. Oh, to be so lucky, I hear you say!

And so very lucky do some indeed appear to be (treated), don't they? And in this regard my mind reverts unavoidably to - no, not U.N.-Secretary-General wannabe Clark, with her own aforementioned succession of 'mini'-scandals from Paintergate to Corngate through to Speedgate - to name just a few, or at least those most easily identified or readily recalled - but wholly another former member of Parliament who served our nation in its halls of power concurrent with Ms Clark's nine-year tenure at the helm of NZ's levers of power in (what once was known as, anyway) 'God's Own'. A Mr Nandor Tanczos, whom I'm sure you'll readily recall.- unless you're a 'young 'un', as some comic-strip character once put things. Yes, the now married with children, then youngish, radical, pot-smoking Green Party M.P. with the unforgettable dreadlocks - whose graffitied facial image is still occasionally encountered in the odd urban centre's inner-city alleyway (and the like).Someone who - with all his immeasurable intellect, incisive reasoning and powers of perception and insight into the 'New Zealand project', early 21st Century and all, and his undoubted commitment to spirituality, let's give him due credit - also 'thumbed his nose' not only more generally at the 'establishment' itself but also more particularly and specifically at the very rule per se of the powers-that-be, i.e. at the law of the land itself, and in an equally open and defiant manner.

A false[deceptive] balance is - indeed, in every way - an abomination: Why 'peace in the Middle East' ever proves so very elusive

It remains incomparably one of the best sources of world news - on this, that, and especially the other. Nevertheless, like everything and everyone else, the BBC is far from a perfectly reliable purveyor of the issues of our day, and nowhere is this more the case than in various 'moral issues' of great controversy, on religious (and 'cultural') matters and even figures of note, and on political controversies causing major schisms throughout our present-day world - with two notable exceptions: 'World Have Your Say' with Jackie Leonard; and 'Outlook' with Jo Fidgen. Thus, while tuning into BBC World Service Radio early this morning, I heard a brief report on Israel being in the process of passing a new law preventing the release of the bodies of Palestinian perpetrators of murderous violence upon Israeli civilians; following on from the unprecedented rash/spate of 'random acts of unkindness' as in unprovoked stabbings, often fatal, that have been occurring - initiated by both Israelis upon Palestinians as well as Palestinian upon Israelis, incidentally - mostly in Jerusalem. Thus Mr [Liebermann:sp?], Israel's newly-installed Defence Minister (I believe), has been enacting this new law, clearly as a way of retaliating against the Palestinian community, in particular in its connection to the Palestinian Authority - ever seen as initiating or ultimately behind any orchestrated campaign of violence against Israeli citizens (though of course not necessarily directly involved; except by implication. As Israel of course has long had a large Palestinian Arab population, and indeed, when combined with Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinians constitute a greater proportion of the present population than Israeli Jews - the essential reason the latter are so wary of the sometimes touted 'one state solution' to the incessant Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) What grabbed my attention - as in made me involuntarily stop and pay closer attention, though to say I was surprised is hardly the case - was simply the following: after announcing the above-mentioned new law being enacted in response to another recent killing - this time in Israel's post-resettlement capital, Tel Aviv - the BBC correspondent, as if to say (echoing Yours Truly's other blogsite name): 'Nuff Said: this is the final, unchallengeable word on the matter', thus - implicitly - rejecting and dismissing all future consideration of the question, declared, in response to the above report and specifically to the lack of perceived justification (on the part of the BBC, presumably) for such a law: "the head of the Palestinian Authority" - i.e. Mahmoud Abbas - "condemned all attacks on innocents/innocent civilians in Israel." As if such a typically weak-kneed, arguably entirely worthless and trivializing 'condemnation' was all that the situation required or demanded, or would - to any right-minded person - be sufficient to stem the tide (of) recent (months), the outpouring of brutal violence of Israel's two major ethnicities against each other (in especially Jerusalem). One is almost tempted to wonder whether the reporter actually really, truly believed what he'd just reported, or - much more likely - wanted to believe it - probably simply so as to be able to dismiss any further consideration of the matter from his mind; 'out of sight, out of mind' kinda thing.But irrespective, Mahmoud's simplistic response, and the reporter's ready, unquestioning acceptance of this as anything remotely approaching an adequate response, themselves parallel and even highlight the gulf that currently exists in our world between apologists for the worldwide campaign of terrorism conducted in the wake of 9/11, and those who simply cannot accept - whatever the supposed provocation - human beings carrying on a way which is simply barbaric, inhuman and indeed devilish and beastly. Thus such softminded 'thinking' - if one can possibly dignify it with such a term - is exactly why the 'few and far between' 'condemnation' of ISIS/ISIL/DAYISH/DAYESH and Al Qaeda and the like - such as their African equivalents Al Shabab and Boco Haran - has justly earned its own unsparing condemnation by Westerners and others. These people are not merely perplexed by but outright appalled that these fellow-travellers not only evidently see no need to apologize on their 'compatriots'' behalf, ashamed - by obvious implication - in even being associated, if only by religious affiliation, with such subhumans; but more significantly perhaps, the generally Western apologists for such terrorists apparently see nothing the matter with these fellow Muslims themselves failing to do so[i.e. condemn these terrorists], whilst earnestly and constantly seeking to reassure the rest of us that, for example, 'Islam is a religion of peace' and no-one need suppose any possible danger from the unprecedented influx of Middle Easterners throughout the Western world but especially throughout 'Western Europe'. (Yes, even pre-Syrian refugee deluge, and personally, I've no time for those scapegoating such tragic-stricken folk; it's well-known these days that ISIS 'plants' its terrorists in their midst to foment further troubles by deliberate design.) Certainly any so-called condemnation of such folk by Muslim authorities and leadership around the world has consistently failed to make a skerrick of difference to the situation, still less to the terrorists themselves(and presumably also other would-be terrorists). Supposedly these Muslim authorities and their leadership around the globe are as shocked and horrified - like everyone else, or rather all reasonable-minded folk - by the barbaric beheadings, both individual and group; the mass suicide bombings (for a contradiction in terms; most people surely wouldn't have any objection if such folk simply took themselves out of circulation - a 'good riddance' as we used to say); and other associated mass slaughters of innocent civilians throughout much of the Middle East and parts of Western Europe. No, sadly - but all too predictably enough - interestingly, quite unlike the consistent and entirely realistic response of the noble Kurds, Jordan's heroic military-king, and even Egypt's restored military government - such 'responses' are much more akin to slapping someone with the proverbial wet bus ticket and/or seeking to cover a gaping wound with a mere sticking plaster. It clearly won't do, it just isn't - remotely - credible, and those trying to pawn off on their rightly-concerned populations such specious 'solutions', are, to use Mitt Romney's memorable words but in an entirely different context, simply trying to take the rest of us for a bunch of suckers. However, to return to the main matter in discussion, it is always best to apply impartiality in all such matters. And so, on the other hand, until the present Israeli Government is brought to account for its own horrific barbarity against innocents in its invasion of Gaza in mid-2014 (I believe), yes, its own genocidal massacre of Gazan innocents in hospitals, schools and elsewhere for which Palestinians are presently seeking to bring it to the International Criminal Court, nothing will change; in the Middle East anyhow, in the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And yes, though I accept it's also high time the world started to pay some and proper attention to the very real threats to the every existence of Israel and its people by all manner of officials and politicians and other leaders in the Palestinian territories and Iran especially - and stop simply throwing it under the proverbial rug as per usual, it's still all too and tragically true that Israel still quite definitely has some very serious blood on its hands. and until it deals with that uimaginably appalling blind spot in its own mirror, nothing is going to change in the Middle East. That much is only too glaringly obvious - and then some.