Health approach to be taken for users of synthetic drugs, harsher penalties for suppliers

By: Lucy Bennett

Political Reporter, NZ Herald

People who make or supply synthetic drugs face life in prison under changes announced by the Government today.

Police Minister Stuart Nash and Health Minister David Clark announced that two compounds found in most synthetics – AMB Fubinaca and 5FABD – will be reclassified as Class A drugs, attracting a maximum penalty of life in prison for manufacture and supply.

A new classification, Class C1, will be created to give police greater search and seizure powers for other new and emerging drugs. It is essentially a holding classification before those drugs are then made Class A.

The move is part of a two-pronged approach to stop those “peddling in death in our communities”, according to Nash – cracking down on makers and suppliers but treating drug use as a health issue rather than a criminal issue.

Police will be told to use more discretion when dealing with people caught using the drugs.

That approach will also be extended to users of all illegal drugs, but Clark and Nash denied it was “decriminalisation by stealth”.

Nash said 52 people had died this year alone from using synthetics, which are often laced with poisonous chemicals.

“Under current laws synthetics and other dangerous drugs are killing people and fuelling crime while dealers and manufacturers get rich. The current approach is failing to keep Kiwis safe and can’t be continued,” Clark said.

“It’s time to do what will work. We need to go harder on the manufacturers of dangerous drugs like synthetics, and treat the use of drugs as a health issue by removing barriers to people seeking help.”

The measures announced today are:

• Reclassifying the two main ingredients found in synthetics linked to recent deaths – AMB Fubinaca and 5FABD – as class A drugs

• Creating a temporary C1 classification for new and emerging drugs to give police greater search and seizure powers

Jacinda is dishonest

by Christie on December 14, 2018 at 9:00am

Oh dear. The prime minister of the open and transparent government is now being accused of being dishonest about her text messages, received from Richie Hardcore, a supporter of Karel Sroubek, because she has pretended, all the way through this farcical situation, that she had no personal interest and a lot of secret information about the case that would change our minds about giving residency to a wife-beating drug lord who is in jail on drug trafficking charges… but is a lovely boy really.

Well, his mother says so anyway.

But the opposition doesn’t think so. Stuff reports: quote.

The Opposition leader claims the prime minister has been dishonest about a text message she received from a friend of Czech drug-smuggler Karel Sroubek.

When asked if he believed that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had lied about a message from Richie Hardcore, National leader Simon Bridges said by omission, she had been dishonest and that was “pretty much the same” as lying.

Ardern confirmed she received the message but said she did not engage with the unsolicited message. end quote.

 

I don’t have the prime minister’s mobile phone number to send a text to. Do you? So Richie Hardcore is a privileged person. Now why would that be? quote.

Bridges said it “beggars belief” that this was the first or only communication from Hardcore to Ardern about Sroubek.

He believed she knew more about Sroubek than she was saying or that Hardcore had been lobbying her. end quote.

 

I have to admit, this makes sense. Hardcore is clearly a close associate of Jacinda and Clarke. He is also an associate of Karel Sroubek. That the prime minister thinks it is okay to give her immigration minister directives to award residency to people supported by her friends is both surprising and very disappointing. That she may have actually done it beggars belief. quote.

“For nearly two months, my colleagues and I have been asking serious questions and the picture painted by Ardern was that she knew nothing about any of this … that’s dishonest.”

He said he did not buy her comment that her phone number was widely available and questioned why she would not release the text message.

Hardcore works in counselling and rehabilitation in Auckland and it is understood Ardern had met him at various events.

He had previously provided references in support of Sroubek (or Antolik as he was then known) to the sentencing judge in March 2016, arguing against him being jailed, and then to the Parole Board in December 2017. His pleas fell on deaf ears on both occasions: Sroubek was jailed in 2016, and the Parole Board refused early release in 2017.

When asked about the message on Thursday, Ardern said she would not release the text because she received a number of communications from a number of individuals in various capacities but she would consider an Official Information Act request. end quote.

You have to ask why she will not release the text. Let’s face it, the reason cannot be good. It is getting harder and harder to believe that Hardcore did not solicit the prime minister… particularly as Sroubek is such a lovely citizen, just grossly misunderstood. Sroubek’s wife, who is in a safe house in fear for her life, is clearly misguided in her assessment of him. quote.

She confirmed she had known Hardcore for a number of years and had proactively shared that she had received information from him, highlighting, it was only after the minister made his decision on the Sroubek case.

“I’ve only been asked in the past about whether I knew anyone that made representations on this case. I’ve made it very clear I knew nothing of this case until it was in the public domain. I do not know who made representations on the case and I could not, hand on heart, say whether anyone who contacted me made representation. I saw yesterday that the opposition were asking very direct questions – made the decision to put out there what contact I had received. I want to reiterate I did not receive this communication until the case was on the public domain.” end quote.

Whatever. What was all the stuff about ‘read between the lines’? She had ignored all representations on this case, in spite of the fact that he should never have been given residency. Not at any point, not at any time.

The prime minister is obfuscating here, and the deputy prime minister is covering for her, but then, as he is one of her henchmen, that should come as no surprise.

Winston was always a master of trying to hold the previous government to account, but he is ducking and weaving like a snake. He may appear smart in the house, but he is fooling no one. This government is probably the most dishonest government ever, and Winston Peters put it there.

There, fixed it for you

by Whaleoil staff on December 8, 2018 at 9:00am

The Labour party posted the following on their facebook page…

#TodayInHistory A major milestone for New Zealand. Who remembers this?

 

In New Zealand, (as the Labour party well know) we do NOT elect our Prime Minister we elect the party or parties that form the government. Thanks to the Whaleoilphotoshopping team we were able to fix this inaccuracy for them…

 

It was the Nats that did it… ???

by Christie on December 8, 2018 at 8:30am

Winston Peters is trying to blame the previous government for signing New Zealand up to the UN’s Global Compact on Migration, claiming that the whole process was initiated in 2016.

Nice try Winston, but no chance.

Stuff reports: quote.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has criticised National for attacking a United Nations pact on migration, which he says the party initiated in 2016.

This week National leader Simon Bridges said if his party was in government, it would pull out of the UN’s Global Compact on Migration because of what he saw as its potential to restrict New Zealand’s ability to set its own migration and foreign policy.

He called on the Government to outline its position on the intergovernmental negotiated agreement, which is set to be signed in Morocco next week.

Peters told Parliament on Thursday that Cabinet had not yet made a decision on the now-controversial pact, which was the result of a process National began in Government in 2016. end quote.

 

First of all, kudos to Simon Bridges for two things here. First, he says National doesn’t want a bar of the UN’s Pact. Good. Secondly, by saying that a National government would pull out of it, he has brought the issue to the attention of the public and the media, who have studiously ignored the subject, even though the pact is to be signed in a week’s time. Once again, the sycophantic media have avoided the hard questions, and it was left to the leader of the opposition to bring these question to the fore. Good on Simon Bridges for that. quote.

“We are dealing with a compact process that was signed up to by the then National Party in December 19, 2016 … committed New Zealand to signing the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and to have the process of time going forward to this time in 2018,” Peters said. end quote.

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, will you Winston? National did not sign up to anything in 2016. quote.

National’s Foreign Affairs Spokesman Todd McClay asked Peters if he was aware the agreement made no distinction between legal and illegal migration and called for restrictions on freedom of speech and the media.

Peters said he had studied the allegations, which had been made by some countries around the world and some people in a worldwide campaign, very carefully.

“Both those allegations are demonstrably false,” he told the House. end quote.

Not true here either, Winston. You are just making it up. quote.

Outside the House, McClay rejected any suggestion National had signed up to an agreement in 2016 that had led to this pact.

He said an agreement had gone through the UN that New Zealand had not spoke out against, but had not actively signed up to – only 15 countries had.

“We didn’t attend the meetings. All countries in the UN allowed it to go through. It was open for signature, the National Government did not sign it – Peters is wrong, but that happens often.” end quote.

Yes, but the real question here is not what the previous government did – or did not do – in 2016. The big question is – what is this government going to do about this pact now? quote.

“The one that is before Cabinet has been negotiated by his Government. A lot of New Zealanders have the same concerns that Australia, the United States, and more than 15 other countries do, the Government shouldn’t be signing this, it commits the Government to doing things that are not in our interests.” end quote.

What is Winston’s modus operandi here? By blaming the previous government for supposedly signing us up to the deal, does this mean that the Labour-led coalition government is going to sign it?

That is what it sounds like to me.

How on earth could Winston, who has been anti-immigration for as long as anyone can remember, ever consider signing up to this?

The fact that the government has not condemned the pact for the damage it would do to member country’s sovereignty, is telling enough.

Photoshopped image credit: Luke

Everyone knows that Jacinda, and her puppet master, Helen Clark, would want to sign the pact, which basically allows all migrants to country shop and turns migration into a human right. How can Winston even consider signing up to something like this?

I’m not sure there is any other way of interpreting Winston’s movements here. To me, it appears that the government is going to sign New Zealand up to this treasonous pact and then he is going to blame National for it.

Winston’s treachery really does know no bounds. His reasoning, however, is harder to fathom. Surely Winston is too old for a job at the UN? So what else has he traded for agreeing to this?

Whatever it is, you can bet your sweet life that it will be beneficial to Winston himself, but if he really is selling New Zealand out to the UN, then this time he really has gone too far

Our most vulnerable are being betrayed by this government

by Max Sky on December 8, 2018 at 11:30am

A new report has suggested that decriminalising drugs should earn the Government half a billion dollars in benefits.

The recent cry from the New Zealand MSM to increase the alcohol drinking age to twenty whilst an ex-prime minister encourages legalisation of the sale of marijuana, and then the Coalition of Losers compensating meth users for being evicted from State housing while government agencies attempt to eradicate cigarette smoking, have me questioning the irrational, contradictory edicts and the real underlying intentions of our government.

The repudiation of our historical Christian foundations and moral precepts may have harmful repercussions to vulnerable children and adults, yet the ‘Progressive Left’ reject those principles on the spurious grounds that it would actually ‘protect the most vulnerable’.

‘Progressive’ cultural changes have undermined respect for the absolute rules that constrain how people behave.

‘Progressive’ policies damage the family unit by encouraging ‘lone parenting’ whilst discouraging marriage and denigrating men.

Being the child of a fatherless family since age 8 years, I was quite oblivious and happy and fortunately I had the benefit of excellent teachers as male role models. Now, as a man in my later years, I can perceive the misery of some children living under the yoke of a fatherless system which can lead to crime, educational underachievement or dropping out, alcohol and drug addiction and early pregnancy. These dysfunctional attitudes will then be handed down to the next generation.

Added to the problem of the fatherless family, we now have in some Western left-wing countries the official attitude that the use of drugs should be ‘managed’ rather than reduced.

The attitude of ‘harm reduction’ by decriminalisation of some drugs is being pushed despite the potential for young persons and adults to become enslaved to them. Legalising some drugs may encourage the risk takers, the dysfunctional and the vulnerable to try the more dangerous illegal drugs.

Managing addiction by legalising more drugs, rather than reducing addiction, is harmful. If marijuana needs to be legalised, do it by allowing the pharmaceutical companies to develop scientifically legitimate, FDA approved, marijuana-derived medications to alleviate definite medical symptoms.

If we don’t do that then legalisation is nothing more than tax gathering and socialist control.

Now, in a similar way, we face the prospect of the UN controlling our immigration levels. If they get it wrong, will we be allowed to deport terrorists or criminals for our protection? Or will their possible jeopardy if they are deported be prioritised over ours?

We have a government which seems intent on taking away our dominion while betraying our most vulnerable.

Painting faces black is racist but painting them white is not

by Suze on December 2, 2018 at 8:30am

Why is painting faces black considered racist, but painting them white is not?

Traditionally, geishas paint their faces white, so do Halloween characters and traditional French mime artists. I’ve never heard one word of complaint from white skinned people about racism in the face of white-faced performers.

French mime artist

A traditional Dutch character, Black Pete, is joining Rotorua’s Christmas festivities this year and calls of racism are upsetting the event organisers. The same thing is happening overseas, including in Holland where the tradition originates. Newshub reports. Quote.

‘Black Pete’ to appear at the local feast of St Nicholas on December 5.  The traditional character sees those playing them paint their face black and lips red, then put on a curly black wig and hand out presents and sweets to children.

 

The demonstrators were on their way to Dokkum, above, to protest against the inclusion of Zwart Piet in the town’s festival. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images

It’s been called racist – even by many in the Netherlands, where the character originates – but Rotorua Netherlands Society member Douwe Visser believes it’s just tradition.  He told NZME it will have to change in the future, after some conversations in the community, but not now.” End of quote.

Origins of the character are not considered insulting – it is only our politically correct over-sensitivity that has caused this change in thinking.  People are dreaming up insults that never existed previously. Black Pete is a good guy.   Quote.

I think it has to change a little because for some people it’s looked at as insulting, but originally it wasn’t meant that way,” he told NZME. “I think it will change in the future, but we’ll have to talk about it.” End of quote.

Rotorua Multicultural Council president Margriet Theron said she’s in two minds about the costumes and will wait to see what the public has to say.

“The old Dutch people are very attached to the tradition but … I don’t think it’s going to go down well,” she told NZME.

It hasn’t gone down well with the NZ Human Rights Commission, who told NZME people need to challenge the perpetuation of racist stereotypes and customs like Black Pete.

“Racism, overt or casual, is not acceptable,” a spokesperson said.

Fights in the streets have broken out in the Netherlands over the character.” End of quote.

The NZ Human Rights Commission has lost the plot, yet again.

We need to stop being so precious about “racism”.  Let’s get a French mime artist to tag along with Black Pete at Rotorua’s Christmas festivities to highlight the ridiculousness of the racism argument.  They can both hand out sweets and pressies to the kids.