Democratic Constitution NZ

The Bradford 'demons'

2009-08-30T15:37:00.000-07:00

La Bradford would now have us believe that at least half the NZ electorate are raving sadists raging to bash their children. Well, MS Bradford has expressed extremist views before, and, for all we know she may still be a “Das Kapital”-bashing Marxist fundamentalist.

One cannot help but reflect that her obsession with “violence” (and by the way, notice how she pronounces the word ‘violence’ with her mouth almost contorted to make the sound thick and coarse…) could be an externalisation of some personal demons lurking in the dark, dank depths of her soul… That’s if she accept that she may have one, of course.

Obey the referendum: return Section 59 to what it was before the Bradford folly!

2009-08-22T16:23:00.000-07:00

To all of you in your 'parliament':

The People of New Zealand have spoken. Now is the time for all of you to show us that you have the grace and humility to accept that you were wrong. To quote the phrase: “What part of the word 'No' do you not understand?”

Every opinion poll showed 80% of us opposed the change. Yet you stupidly went ahead and ignored us. Opinion polls typically sample 1000 to 1500 people, with a margin of error of 3% to 4% . Over 1.6 million New Zealanders voted in the referendum. That is a figure that is 1000 times more representative than mere opinion polls.

You, Ms Bradford, have the insolence to dismiss the 54% participation as unrepresentative. Let's see, you and your 119 comrade mps are 0.007% of that 54%. Who is kidding whom in terms of representativity? You then try to claim that the 46% of the electorate who did not take part chose not to do so because, in your opinion, they were “confused” by a “flawed” question. Pull the other one! The question was clear cut, and the whole debate was simply about whether your proposed new 'law' should stand or be rejected. But of course, comrade Key did his bit to deliberately discourage participation by saying in advance that he comrade Key would simply dis-regard the result because under the rules set up by your 'parliament' referendums are non-binding.

Well, I've got news for you: your new 'law' is now null and void. It is non-law, it is anti-law, it is merely an expression of your contempt for the people of New Zealand. The advice from the people to the police could not be clearer: do not attempt to enforce what the people have clearly and firmly rejected. The People are the law.

A referendum is true, real democracy in action. By dismissing it and disobeying the command of the people you are courting disaster, because, in effect, you will be rebelling against us.

Sincerely,

Dominic Baron.

Our very own petty "Putin" of the South Pacific.

2009-08-04T18:40:00.000-07:00

Hello to my Blog. I haven't written to you since last November because I've spent a lot of energy writing on Steve Baron's Blog: Better Democracy. So it's time I came back here, and what I want to say is just how depressed I am by the attitude of Mr John Key, our 'prime' 'minister' refusing, in advance, to obey the instruction of the referendum now under way by postal ballot.

John Key has the insolent effrontery to say that "he" will "change the law" only if he sees fit. To me it is just unbelievable that this little man can utter such crass stupidity. To put it as bluntly as I can: Who does he think he is??!! The People make the law. The People *are* the law, not one paltry politician, nor even a paltry "parliament" of politicians. Only the people can make and unmake laws. Only the people are sovereign. No single person or group of people can usurp the sovereignty of the people.

When John Key says that he will ignore the referendum result and only "change the law" on his own whim, he joins that lovely bunch of creeps such as the vain and corrupt Berlusconi, the gross bully Chavez, and thst serious thug Putin.

When John Key utters his mealy-mouthed platitudes about "restoring democracy" to Fiji, he is so deeply steeped in the soup of his own hypocrisy that he doesn't realize just how undemocratic and fascist his own political outlook is. Sadly the antiquated political system imposed upon us by force of arms so long ago lets him get away with his diktats... just like his predecessors...

Referendums inoculate societies against extremists.

2008-11-01T14:30:00.000-07:00


Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.
[Margaret Mead]

My comment on that:

Yes, and that is precisely the trouble. Think how "committed" the Bolsheviks were to destroying Russia's fledgling democratic institutions. Think how "committed" the Nazis were to destroying Germany's fledgling democratic institutions. Think how "committed" those 'Generals' are to destroying Burma's fledgling democratic institutions.

And think how various tiny ideological groups in our own societies are "committed" to imposing their prejudices upon the majority by pushing their control over so many of our institutions.

That's why we need the antidote of the citizens' referendums to ward off the viral infections of the lobby groups of whatever ilk: business, ideological, political.

TweedleClark and TweedleKey

2008-04-06T18:08:00.000-07:00

TweedleClark and TweedleKey

Frankly, I can’t really spot any real differences between their political platforms. Their most significant agreement is in their contempt for the people. Nothing has exemplified this more than their grim determination to ignore the groundswell of public condemnation of their joint support for the Sue Bradford bill that has criminalized normal parents.

Worst of all has been their public commitment to ignoring the result of the forthcoming referendums on the twin issues of parental responsibility for discipline and on investigating the real causes of child abuse.

Given that at least 75% of the people have made it clear that they opposed the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, it is very likely that these referendums will be massively approved by the people.

With the “leaders” of the two major parties absolutely united in their determination to trample over the only bit of true democracy available to the people of New Zealand, what can the response of the people be other than withering contempt for the pair of them, for their sycophantic parties, and for all their dismal works in and out of “parliament”?

US Election – what exactly is “democratic” about it?

2008-04-03T17:31:00.000-07:00

US Election – what exactly is “democratic” about it?

Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama come across as talented, intelligent, energetic, and good people. I do not doubt that they are all capable of running the top administrative and executive job in the United States of America. But voting on people is *not* what democracy is about.

Certainly, a procedure in which a popularity contest is “won” by whoever gets the most “votes” is technically “democratic”. But the technique of voting “democratically” is *not* what democracy is truly about.

True, real, democracy is *policies*, not *people*. By all means let us elect our administrators by democratic techniques, but that is merely one very limited aspect of democratic governance. Only when the people govern themselves can democratic governance be recognised to exist. A society is fully, 100% democratic only when all the rules by which its members wish to live have been ratified by those same members applying the basic techniques of democracy to all of those rules.

The US presidential election has nothing to do with democratic governance; it is only a limited exercise of a democratic technique with the sole objective of determining which candidate is the most “popular”. Real democracy will have to wait until the United States constitution is re-written by the people for the people and controlled only by the people.

Letter to Paul Swain MP.

2008-04-02T17:08:00.000-07:00

Hello Paul,

When I visit the parliament buildings I am not impressed by the airport-style system in the entrance that is used to scan all members of the public before they are allowed to enter. To me that just demonstrates contempt for the people, and it leads me to ask these questions:

1] Since when has it been in operation?

2] Who ordered this to be set up?

3] What event caused this measure to be deemed necessary?

Thank you for attention.

Sincerely,

Dominic Baron.

If and when I get any answers I'll post them here.

Democracy and Censorship cannot co-exist

2008-04-02T16:58:00.001-07:00

Democracy and Censorship cannot co-exist

It is impossible to reconcile with democracy, whose intrinsic nature it is to be open and transparent, the view that there are some things that cannot and must not be known by the members of a society that claims to be a democracy. That thought has been in my mind for a number of weeks as I try to find out if some sort of censorship of international news items is in operation here in New Zealand.

The basis for my concern arose like this. Because Spanish is my first language I like reading some on-line Spanish newspapers. One in particular that I regularly read is the highly respected Barcelona daily called “La Vanguardia”. I was browsing through the Monday, 4th February 2008, edition, when this item caught my attention:

http://www.lavanguardia.es/lv24h/20080204/53432988886.html

It reported the tragic case in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, of a 15 year old boy allegedly shooting dead his parents and two younger brothers. Here’s a US web-site that reports and comments on that event:

http://www.dreamindemon.com/2008/02/03/nick-browning-has-one-hell-of-a-tantrum-kills-4/

“How sad”, I thought, and almost immediately this event reminded me of the David Bain case. I looked through the “Stuff” pages online, fully expecting this news to be covered here too. Not a mention. I took a look at other online NZ newspapers. Nothing. Several Australian and UK newspapers carried this news. Various international press agencies reported it. I monitored the NZ press over the next few days and found nothing. Because the tragedy resembled the Bain one I had fully expected this story to find some resonance in our NZ media. There was none.

Puzzled by this silence I then contacted the “Media Watch” team on Radio NZ National. Their program, on air just after the 9 am news on the “Sunday” show that is hosted by Chris Laidlaw , regularly analyses and comments on how the media do their job. Coincidentally, on Sunday 10th February they dwelt at length on the increasing extent to which the NZ media are being muzzled by a steady stream of injunctions issued by the “contempt-happy” judiciary. I thought, therefore, that they would hasten to take up my suggestion that they look into this as possibly being a case of blanket censorship over the David Bain case.

No response. So I gently chided the presenters, Colin Peacock & Cushla Managh, to at least acknowledge my email. Cushla Managh obliged, but said absolutely nothing about the issue I had raised. Silence again. The most recent thing I’ve done about this was to send a note to Chris Laidlaw, giving him the background and asking if he has an explanation. So far, no response.

What can one make of this?

1. That the news item was trivial and I’m making a fuss about nothing?
2. Or that there is in fact some blanket censorship in operation about which all news itself censored?

I have no answers and no one answers my questions. At least I can put up a blog about it and see if anyone notices!

Is green the colour of hypocrisy?

2008-03-26T17:30:00.000-07:00

Is green the colour of hypocrisy?

Sue Kedgley is most impressed by the results of a survey showing that 85 percent of New Zealanders support making it an offence to use a mobile phone while driving.

Sue Bradford is totally un-impressed by the results of several surveys showing that over 80 percent of New Zealanders opposed making it an offence for parents to discipline their children with a smack.

Like all political parties, the NZ Greens have a black hole of fascism at their centre, where reside the policies that they are prepared to impose upon the people by force, if they deem it right so to do.

The democratic paradox

2008-03-12T16:53:00.000-07:00

The democratic paradox

The “left” side of politics claims to be “of the people” and “for the people”. However, they have no time for ordinary folks’ views on such mundane matters as parental discipline, and so they dismissed the notion of a referendum on the proposal to repeal Section 59 because this is a “complex and controversial issue”. So the “left" attitude to the very class it claims to represent is the Leninist concept of being “the vanguard of the proletariat”. In normal words: “We know what is best for you.”

On the “right” side of politics, the prime claim is to be defending individual choices and family values which are commonly believed to be supported by most people. Yet the “right” also believes firmly in “authority” and “leadership”, and for that reason it too dismisses referendums, because the ordinary people are too dim and can’t be trusted. The “right” too declares with equal passion: “We know what is best for you.”

Both sides unite in unhealthy connivance to resist the right of the people to be the final arbiters of the rules of society. That is why the political establishment is held in such contempt by ordinary people. I share and heartily encourage that contempt, and the best way to express it is simply: DON’T VOTE. If enough of us refuse to participate in the political farce we will eventually bring it to a grinding halt. Its illegitimacy will be exposed and we can then finally grant ourselves our first democratic constitution. Finally we can stop the political class from imposing their will upon us, and instead force them to obey the will of the people.

First posting: The aim of this blog.

2008-03-02T16:17:00.000-08:00

Here is a place where I shall regularly place my own thoughts and observations on what I see is the poor status that real democracy has in my adopted country of New Zealand and what I believe we need to do to remedy this.

My comments won't be restricted to the topic of "democracy" because I also want to express publicly, from time to time, my thoughts on other subjects that may have only a slight bearing on "democracy". However, the overall and underlying theme of the work that I want to put into this blog is quite truthfully the promotion of democracy in the fullest sense of the word.

This blog ties in with my web-site:
http://www.democraticconstitution.org.nz-a.googlepages.com/home

It is probably a good idea to visit it to get a clear insight into what I shall be writing about here.

On the web-site are are longer pieces and statements that aim to provide the foundation for achieving an awakening of the people's will to impose the Sovereign Will of The People over any assembly and over any government.

That's all for this opening post.