supreme court


“Gloablism is here to stay and their is nothing any one can do about it”
 Helen Clark Former NZ PM Maiden Parliament Speech

I don’t vote National – far to liberal of that.

And to make that statement clear when I say liberal I mean an old school liberal like George Clooney (Good Night and Good Luck)  not the kind of goose stepping neo liberal who think the idea of NZ signing the TPPA, so corporations can come in here buy up our water, drill where they want, spray what they want, and have us  work in mines and factories that are not safe, in a manner where their is no redress and no defence, is a good idea.  Neo liberals may applaud globalism I think it sucks.

I use to vote Labour.

Then Sir Roger Douglas and his neo liberal sycophants infiltrated and corrupted that party. To the point where it still has not recovered and even still the civil war for control of the Labour Caucus wages deep inside the Labour Caucus in plot and counter plot like some complex episode of Agent of SHEILD. As to who is a neo liberal agent waiting for Andrew Little to fall and who is not it is hard to tell.

It is very easy to fall prey for pretty words when those mouthing them know they are not in power and need not back those word up – yet still look good. Yet the like of Chris Trotter make it clear their are still plenty within Labour that in the privacy of their home in secret rooms of their mind hail to the “all wise” Fabian wisdom of Douglas as they prey to Globalism and devote themselves to an Internationalist agenda in which power is centralised and to them the TPPA AOK.
So then I switched to the Greens but then they decided supporting a carbon credit trading scheme that makes polluters rich was okay, that spraying 1080 was okay, that the privatisation of water, as Russell Norman Leader stated during a leader debate in 2010, was ok (a policy which Big Dairy just loves by the way) and a dozen other things that gnawed at me as I saw neo liberal like Kevin Hague take Rods possum seat warmer and toss it in the bin.Yet for me the defining moment would be in 2004, when along with Labour’s neo liberals, they supported National’s decision to dump the Westminster based privy council in support of a US styled Supreme court system. A court system which would let John pick our top judges (and what a bunch of in breeds you have their) where upon they would interpret the laws John wanted past.
Frankly all I can see when I see the Greens these days is the same slow but methodical infiltration of a grass root movement by neo-liberalism that occurred under Labour.  The bigger the party has become the more expensive their designer suits have become. The deeper the rot. Will some one not save us from hipsters who preach environmentalism while their pockets are loaded with electrical devices and consumer goodies.
These are the people who are getting to speak at our Nationwide TPPA protests, at the fore front, as we allow politicians and interest groups to hijack a people movement nd once more tell us what to do and to shut up and listen to them because they know best.Will I contest that view point!These are the people who don’t want us to talk about the Flag, the dumping of the privy council, the constitutional advisory board, or the conflict of interests, which exist in relation to who sits on these panels.Major issues which have a huge impact on shaping the manner in which we can successfully mount a legal defence should we in fact sign the TPPA which is almost a given as long as National is in power.


Weapons of Mass Distraction



Those who have being paying attention will note critics of my position keep trying to keep the debate to just my views on the flag – which they address ad nausea, then put out of context in a manner where either they demonstrate they cant read. Or they are seeking to intentionally sabotage my words (in which case  the question why presents it own conclusion).
What they won’t engage in is my point that its not just about the symbolic value of the flag but it is also very much tied into the 2004 decision for NZ to end its association with the Commonwealth Privy Council in favor of a US style Supreme Court.And frankly the destruction of Privy Council is the number one issue we need to address before we begin talk of mounting a legal defense in case the TPPA does get signed.
That change was supported by the same neo liberals in Labour and the Greens who then have the audacity to take the primary spots at the anti TPPA rallies.Dont get me wrong they have a place there – but the reality is if they are sincere in hearing our concerns then that what they need to do sit back and let us the people speak in a manner that out side the key note speaker people get to have their say first come first served basis, Any thing else is not democracy and that is after all what were fighting to preserve.To be fair the vast majority of Greens voted in support of the belief this was done to insure the Treaty of Waitangi took on greater constitutional importance.Im not a Treaty expert so others are free to wade in here (in fact input is very welcome on that point)

Regardless the indisputable FACT remains when we sign the TPPAOur options are to contest it in court of law on a number of grounds. At which point  it will be contested first in a NZ lower courts and then it will climb through the courts over a long peroid of time ( during which no doubt we  can expect other protections to get torn down)  tell it eventually ends up at the NZ Supreme Court for a final ruling. As stated this will be a court where John Key got to hand pick all the judges that now sit on it.  So what ruling do you think the court will then hand down.
If the Privy Council was in place at less we would have had a chance of the TPPA being repealed (in the context that the agreement conflicts against the principal of human rights and sovereign rights as laid out under the West-minster system – as based on the Magna Carta).
Still potentially we could contest saying for example it infringes the Bill of Rights or the Treaty of Waitaingi. But what chance have we of succeeding if the Court is stacked and the Treaty has being tampered with so not all iwi are now created equal. That instead we end up with a Banana Republic style paramount chief system (think Fiji) were Treaty Issue get over seen by a new class of aristocracy that is ruthless and out to subjugate all other NZ iwi for the sake of shoring up its own power base.
Why wont these critics talk about the decision to change to a Supreme court and the VITAL NEED to revisit and repeal that DISASTROUS decision?Dont Wait till the Fat Lady Sings

PETER CHIN - Would You Buy A Used Stadium Off this man. And no this is not photo shopped

PETER CHIN – Would You Buy A Used Stadium Off this man.
And no this is not photo shopped

Why wont they discuss who sits on these panels and look at the out right orchestrated level of corruption. This is one of the very issue I wanted to raise in Dunedin during the TPPA protest. Because it is a point which would have brought the house down as I identified a man who sit on both the flag panel, the constitutional advisory panel, is a specialist in Treaty law and who I believe harbour the deep ambitions of one day becoming a judge on the Supreme Court. It is a name well know to the people of Dunedin PETER CHIN or as he is nick named by the locals of Dunedin, in the city of the Tartan Mafia, ‘Corrupt-Chin’.

This is a man with zero credibility who has being hired to insure their is “public consultation” of National’s proposed constitutional amendments. At the 43rd Otago School of politics he would state “I think the idea of public submissions is over rated it simply allows the disgruntled and those with a grudge to drown out the voice of the silent majority”  This is the very man who as a paid lawyer for Web & Farry, while acting as the Commissioner of Gambling, then gained office as the Mayor of Dunedin. Where he then pushed through a $400 million dollar stadium that no one wanted. Will no one other than the local casino owner and the Farry family who sold the swamp land the Stadium was ‘built’ (I use the word “built” very loosely but that is another story) on at 600% above government valuation to the City of Dunedin.  Within five years the Chin administration (which included the current mayor David Cull) took the billion dollar property investment portfolio the city had built up over 150 years and blew it on projects that benefited no one but his wealthy property developer mates and employers. The City is now in debt and the cost for the stadium continues to mount up so the city cant up keep even basic infrastructure and lacks the capital to develop, or future proof, in any meaningful way. It is only a matter of time before it has to start selling off public assets to survive.
I think they would of wanted to have known these details.
I think they had a right to know these details.
I think the very fact TVNZ ran a piece on the “$640.00 day club”, which Chin participates in as he sits on both the flag and the constitutional advisory panel, is proof the information was seen as relevant and had huge public interest. I simply wanted to put that information to the public in the context of what it would mean to the TPPA and what we had to do protect the institution which will protect us from the TPPA,
Institutions which are getting dismantled at a deliberate, rapid and organised fashion for the reason they don’t want us to be able to defend ourselves.
I think being denied the right to tell the people of Dunedin this information was not about me not having anything to contribute. I think the organiser (who gave Labour Green MPs and City Councillor’s front row speaking rights) did not want the public to find these shocking fact out because they were instructed not to let the protest  raise this information.
You have to ask your self why?

Protest organised by faceless committee who decide "people power" behind closed door gives me the shivers - I just cant get behind anonymous decision making .

Protest organised by faceless committee who decide “people power” behind closed door gives me the shivers – I just cant get behind anonymous decision making .

The Ugly Face Behind the Power Mask: No TPPA protesters keep taking your leadership from from Auckland Grammar old boys, Nga Tahu princes, Neo Liberal Labour hang over from Sir Roger Dougas and a hipster Green Party (led and advised increasingly also by a cabal of old boys, old family’s, nga tahu princes) and don’t be surprised when it comes to naught.  Its not a people protest if the people are expect to just sit their and be talked at not listened to.
Where is the discussion on what the legal defence against the TPPA should be — Kelsey has raised this point but yet to date it has not got past the suggestion idea. Meanwhile our opponents are hiring, at $640.00 a day, the very kind of experts we need, to figure how legally they can dismantled all challenges against the TPPA. So when it does get signed then their can be no challenge AFTER the fact to undo this vile form of corporate dictatorshipLest We Forget 



Let us return to issue of the flag – I am told oh ‘that just a symbolic thing’

Dam tootting it is and SYMBOLS are powerful things – don’t believe me just go and ask McDonalds, Play Boy, IBM, CNN ect.
The origin of my idea of raising the flag change was because it was a SYMBOL.A SYMBOL of democracy and our own unique national sovereignty of all the things our grand parent fought and died for. Some of the things the young men, who died on foreign field, turned out to be a lie, government proganda, many found out the hard way that those SYMBOLS were sold under false pretenses. But their mates came back knowing this and they made sure their cobbers did not die in vain by fighting for the democratic rights we enjoy today.
Our current flag is SYMBOL of that struggle and that is something Kiwi do understand and have a huge affinity with and thus it a powerful SYMBOL for us to useA symbol of how Kiwi are take back ownership of their DUE AUTHORITY to reject the SYMBOLS John would have us follow.   To use this SYMBOL to show exactly the contempt John has for all the things kiwis have come to believe is part of our cultural heritage that bond us one.  My idea was to simply use that Flag and John contempt for it as a means of rallying other kiwis to the cause and as a mean insuring the TPPA got the media attention it deserves. In advertising if you want impact you need a symbol what better symbol than our own flag in protest which ultimately is about defend our national sovereignty and “fighting back”.

DUE AUTHORITY Take off the Union Jack we remove the protection of monarch constitutional system and the bill of rights and open our selves wide to the slavery of the TTPA

Take off the Union Jack we remove the protection of monarch constitutional system and the bill of rights and open our selves wide to the slavery of the TTPA

From a marketing view point what do you think would have more impact on kiwis, sitting at home watching TV, to see 10,000 kiwi flags move up Queen street in a symbol of fuck you john this our land our flag our people. Or to see plastic mask of anonymous, knocked out in a Chinese sweat jobs, a symbol of Hollywood terrorism. A symbol borrowed by protesters overseas, with out thought to how dangerous the idea of a protest led by anonymous decision makers is and what a dreadful image it projects to wider public watching from the outside in.

John has very kindly shell out a lot of money to make the flag a public issue. So lets use that to our advantage and engage in some good old fashion guerrilla marketing ourselves.The critics are right the flag is a “distraction from the real issues”.But they are right for the wrong reasons.It might be  a “distraction”  but it is John’s distraction. John intendeds to use not so we end up talking about privy councils and the notion of DUE Authority (no way John wants that) his intention is simply to get us so giddy about the “choice” were being offered we don’t see the real issues at hand or the importance of the change beyond a gimmick. Something for Paul Henry and Michael Hoskings to waffle on about as we fall asleep over our evening ‘spews’.  But we should grab the platform John has unwittingly offered us and use it to engage the public. So that they do get to see the real issues at hand.

We should use the flag debate to get media attention. To take the opportunity presented to spring board the issue of the TPPA into the public consciousness via symbol they know and love.

That the critics don’t want us doing this and that just seem odd to say the less.But the great thing is that okay – perhaps those who organize the protests will continue to stop these issues being raised at protests in the future – but no one is saying you cant as an individuals exercise your own individual DUE AUTHORITY and raise this point yourselves when your on social media or discussing the issue on line. Protest is more than marching.And no once says next time you decide to go to a TPPA protest that you cant get your own kiwi flag and wave it high and wave it proud – perhaps the organiser now best personally I prefer to tlet the people decide that issue for themselves.
Kia KahanzflagLeast We Forget.

Comments 3

  1. Greg Keene

    I think you have hit the nail on the head. People have grasped the flag issue as it is easier to understand and feel passionate about. We differ in our reasoning and the possible implications of changing the flag. I believe it is only a symbol and has no jurisdictional power. hopefully time will prove me right. I would still love you to keep them seperate issues but this now seems unlikely as so many have jumped on the bandwagon for worse as it is a distraction in my opinion. A simple yes or no the change and we can move on to the TPPA, DPHB incompertence etc etc.

    For the international freedom and legality of our primary producers, manufacturers and laws the TPPA is possibly their greatest ever threat.

    A perfect example or 3 is in regard to Mexico being fined millions after being sued by a Fructose manufacturer for loss of profits after Mexico enacted a fructose tax to try and reduce obesity. They successfully argued this was against their Free Trade Agreement with the US. Mexico clearly violated the free trade agreement by introducing the import tax on high fructose products and since the manufacturer had set up new factory’s and plants in Mexico they clearly had a cause to sue I believe. This decision has been upheld numerous times and the bill is now close to $100 million.

    Example two is between australia and Tobacco manufacturer Phillip Morris over the Plain Packaging laws they introduced which have already been brought up in TPPA writings already. I fully support the Australian decision as in NZ. What if we change our law to make NZ 100% smokefree as has been mooted many times (another great argument just waiting for the right person to jump on) If we sign a free trade agreement and then change our laws in the interests of national health can a Tobacco company sue us?

    Where does this leave us in New Zealand if we sign a free trade partnership with the US or other countries and then then change our laws. If we have encouraged these companies to invest in our country and then pull the rug out from under them with a law change then quite possibly they have a right to sue under international law. Will our current and proposed laws stand up to the most rugged scrutiny? Do they have any foresight built into them to enable us to amend them without being sued already? Can we sign a free trade partnership with any country in all honesty knowing that we may want to amend our laws in 10 years time in the interests of our nations health or otherwise. If we as a country want to remove cigarettes or high sugar products from our shelves completely then we should be able to have that right without being sued if we do it fairly and over time so that our international partners can have time to adjust to the impact.

    Thirdly and convesely, can we sue a multinational for taking away a manufacturing plant for say, automobiles if they find market conditions too tough or another country offers them a better deal? If we had given taxpayers money and tax breaks to these companies and then they get a better deal from someone else a couple of years down the track where do we stand? The job losses, third party part plants and local spending dollar drip down in the Australian city of Geelong will devastate their community. The car company has already had tax breaks and cash thrown at it from the Australian government and yet they still said nope, we;re off, good luck. I still remember when the Thames Ford plant went west (or east as the case was) Absolutely devastating. When our freezing works cut back after the UK and other countries put a tax on imported meat after we invested millions in new plants and equipment. devastating again for so many local communities. We have found a way to survive without suing these companies and countries so far. Is it time to fight back, and how?

    Put a value on our products and laws and say to the world: We have the best, we are the safest, we are the cleanest, we are the most uncorrupt, we are the fairest. Let them come to us, pay our price, on our terms and withing our laws. A huge catch-22 but strength in unity is what has made the most positive changes around the world in all forms of life and politics.

    Interesting times ahead.

    How do we protect ourselves when we are part of the global community whether we like it or not. TPPA or not is my question.

    1. Post
      Ben Vidgen

      Greg visa the flag distraction in the context you put yes I accept that .

      But the thing I find so frustrating is that people want to act like this point alone is the decide I raised several issues and combined they all relevant.

      The point why I raised the flag is symbolic and we could turn that around to our advantage as entry point to the more complicated issues of soverignity which the TPPA theaten- I NEVER NEVER NEVER said it legal power

      DUE AUTHORITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DUE PROCESS (which Im beginning to suspect my critics have mixed up not understanding the difference in the two terms).

      ps thank you for your input and having a proper debate with me where we listen to each other and learn.

  2. Greg Keene

    Postman, to be a little clearer with the Mexican analogy. It is very complex and not just about obesity as Mexico is / was at the time the only country with a free trade sugar agreement with the US. Very confusing and ongoing to this day from 2006. They were trying to protect their own sugar producers with the tax which went against the true fairness of the agreement when it was signed. So much already on this and I don’t want it to take anything away from the TPPA / NZ issue.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *