MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Gullible In Godzone.

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 10:46 pm Tue 6th November 2007

Wake up my friends and fellow countrymen; it is not sufficient that we blame our errant youth, that we sacrifice their exuberance and energy to excuse our….. aberrance. It is us who have closed our mind to that essential propriety, which is the essence of society, and our children who suffer, not an enduring devolution, but an enduring de-evolution.

And now beware the uneducated thug who would steal away your life, but beware also the academic tyrant who would steal your way of life. Such is the importance of republicanism, the voice of the people that reminds us that there is a balance in life, that which is the ‘common sense’ of the people.

Politics in isolation is the lost cause of those who would endlessly debate your options. You pay their expenses and they mourn your losses, but somewhere amid this mess of words is an unauthorised shame. The shame of competition and zest that says that success is second best.

If only we could live in fairyland, side by side with the wisdom to aspire, without that frivolity of desire, but alas I see the time has come, to acknowledge what history has always said we would require; the intuition to be consummate, in a passage of society that our future generation will reflect upon and admire.


  1. Bevan,

    the only group in the political world who don’t seem to want republicanism are indigenous Maori until the issues of the Treaty have been sorted out. If you are going to stand and win you have to comprehend the problems that exist. Presnetly you are not demionstrating your knowledge of the situation. You are still talking in philosophy. Philosophy is fine but it isn’t politics. You need to understand the constiution. Without it Jim Bagnall’s constiution will just be ignored. it has no weight in teh argument until the opposite views are measured and thereby are respected with a reply that is equal to the question.

    Read my letter today to Winston. Broadly he questioned the difference between February 5,6th and the 7th 1840 – Chris Carter replied supported by the Speaker about the Magna Carta, trivialising the question. Winston shot back.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 7th November 2007 @ 3:45 pm

  2. Sorry this is off topic,

    Girl, 12 kills family

    God help us all.

    Comment by Peter — Mon 12th November 2007 @ 5:08 pm

  3. Sorry, please try the link below.

    Comment by Peter — Mon 12th November 2007 @ 5:28 pm

  4. Bevan,

    I’ve just come away from the HRC asking to meet tomorrow with an advocate on the Treaty.

    I plan now to release my observations on Treaty issues. This is to say that I will keep you directly informed. Additionally at yesterday’s hikoi that arrived at parliament I talked with Hannah Hobson, I think is her name. She is a TVNZ reporter I believe. She watches and reports on parliament issues. If you have read my earlier post you will read I allege that media haven’t put out the full story as relative to the argument on sovereignty. Others have consistently fobbed me off for what I describe without establishing a full and proper counter argument. I would urge you for the Republican’s perspective to reconise why.

    The English Laws Act 1858 was constiuted in the jurisdiction of the Declaration of Independence without the authority of the Council of Chiefs. This means that only the Maori version of the Treaty has ever been valid. The problems we have on race relations are engaged only because the English power have not developed a society that works as consistent to the principles of the Treaty of Waiangi. These Principles can only be defined by reading the Maori version. This demand as it is a legal demand should be exercised after my communications with the HRC mature. Hopefully I will meet with them tomorrow as I have to meet with someone else from the Commission on Noelle’s case.

    I want a statement from the HRC on discrimination and its conditions with victims of domestic violence. The Act says that the Courts must treat a victim with compassion that is not enforcable. I want to know if not to do that is unlawfully discrimnatory – which I think it will.

    Hope Taupo went well.


    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 15th November 2007 @ 1:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar