I wanted to let the dust settle before writing about Justice Collins’ decision this week that Trade Minister Tim Groser acted unlawfully when he refused to release any information relating to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) to me under the Official Information Act (OIA).
My apologies in advance that this post is quite long. The relevant documents can be found at tpplegal.wordpress.com.
Before discussing the judgment and its implications, the government’s possible responses, and the failure of the Chief Ombudsman to perform her watchdog role, I want to set the case in a broader context.
Throughout the TPPA negotiations Minister Groser sought to justify their obsessive secrecy with a mantra that ‘it’s always done this way’. That was parroted unquestioningly by every fellow travelling journo and politician, and others who were unwilling to challenge the Minister, despite being toldthat was untrue.
Groser changed his tune during the case, arguing that ‘every agreement is different’ and the TPPA is special. Why the shift?
I’ve have been tracking these kind of negotiations for a long time and have box files of documents dating back to 1990. In the late 1990s and early 2000s during the negotiations for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 2000round, numerous documents were released, albeit with some parts blacked out (redactions).
Ministers released some documents unilaterally and others under the OIA. These included Cabinet mandates for the Doha round, the new position on labour standards, and several versions of New Zealand’s requests and offers tabled in the GATS negotiations. Some can still be found on the Internet.
I attached these documents as evidence that the information I sought in my request has been released before, with only the most sensitive sentences redacted.
In other words, the current retreat into secrecy is a recent reversion to an Official Secrets mentality, designed to reverse a trend to openness that was threatening to allow a dangerous degree of daylight to disinfect the negotiations.
There has been a huge backlash against this renewed secrecy. My request was born of a move by the European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly to force some more disclosure. She initiated her own inquiry into the US-EU negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), arguing it would potentially have such profound implications for the citizens of Europe that it could not be conducted in secret. Her report on 6 January 2015 recommended the release of many categories of documents, including draft texts. The European Commission responded to a number of them, including release of its proposals (although EU groups say the Commission is still playing games).
My request to Minister Groser reflected the categoriesO’Reilly recommended, although I only sought documents created by New Zealand and stopped short of asking for the draft texts themselves. I also differentiated between old information in documents created while the negotiations were still conducted through formal rounds, and those from 2014 when negotiations wereunderground.
Groser said a blanket ‘no’. It turns out he made that decision without looking at a single document, arguing that he knew what they all contained. There was no attempt to consider what information within the documents might be released. They would either be so sensitive they couldn’t be released or so anodyne they would be of no interest to me (which is not a ground forwithholding under the Act!).
There was some tortuous reasoning that even apparentlyanodyne information could jeopardise the national interest if someone had arange of other information that allowed them to put the ‘jigsaw’ together.
And, of course, information had been provided in confidence under the secrecy memorandum, where the 12 TPPA countries have agreed to keep a swathe of TPPA-related documents secret for five years after the agreement comes into force (about 7 years from now). Aside from the final text there would be nothing to explain how they got there and what position any of thegovernments took along the way.
It was time to seek a definitive judicial ruling about the meaning of the Act and the grounds on which information can be withheld. There has never been one. But it is impossible to take judicial review unless theChief Ombudsman has reviewed the Minister’s decision or waived such a review on the basis that there is an alternative remedy. She declined to do the latter.
For almost five months, as the TPPA negotiations lurched towards their conclusion, I kept asking for a decision. It turns out that she reviewed only 21 documents in this time, although doubtless there were other discussions.
In late July the Chief Ombudsman decided to uphold the Minister’s decision in six of the categories and added some grounds that the Minister could have relied on. She had not (and still has not) concluded her review of the other two categories, which include cost benefit analyses and other studies, eg of the impacts on the price of medicines.
We filed a request for judicial review in the Wellington High Court as quickly as possible, and the court expedited the hearing. ‘We’ are Consumer NZ, Ngati Kahungunu, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, NZ Nurses Organisation, the Tertiary Education Union and me. Matthew Palmer QC presented a superb case.
On Tuesday Justice Collins delivered his judgement. We had asked for Declarations that a number of aspects of the Minister’s decision were unlawful. We hoped this would provide some clearer interpretation of the provisions under which the Minister can withhold information. However, the judgement is rather scant on that. It was not necessary for the purpose of deciding the case – for now.
The judge concluded that the Minister’s blanket approach to the request did not comply with the Act. He quashed the Minister’s decision and ordered him to revisit it in light of the court’s decision.
This is not simply a matter of getting the process right, allowing Groser to reiterate his decision having looked at the documents, as some commentators have suggested.
The decision also has to reflect the ethos and intention of an Act that…
‘plays a significant role in New Zealand’s constitutional and democratic arrangements. It is essential the Act’s meaning and purpose is fully honoured by those required to consider the release of official information… The orders I have made reinforce to the Minister and other decision-makers the importance of discharging their responsibilities under the Act and promote future compliance’.
In declining to make Declarations, Justice Collins hoped his order would be enough to vindicate my rights under the Act and that the Minister and other decision makers would recognise the importance of complying with the Act. However, if that proves erroneous, we can return to the courtwithin six months for further orders relating to the Minister’s review and the two outstanding matters the Chief Ombudsman has yet to decide on.
So where does this leave us? The media has seized on a Crown estimate of 30,000 pages, which seems plucked out of the air as they haven’t actually identified the information yet, as showing my request is unreasonable. The judge gave that argument short shrift. MFAT believed complying with the request in the way envisaged by the Act would require substantial effort…
‘That, however, is the price Parliament contemplated when it passed the Act and us a challenge regularly encountered and addressed by public servants who are charged with ensuring requests for information are dealt with in accordance with the Act.’
The Act expects the Minister to seek to narrow a request if he considers it too large. I asked for eight categories of documents, and there would only be a handful of documents in some of them. That’s negotiable.
Others have suggested I may be hoist by my own petard. Section 18A allows the Minister to require me pay a massive charge for these 30,000 pages. The rate for labour expended is $38 a half hour after the first hour, plus photocopying charges.
My treasure trove of documents shows I have fought that battle successfully before. Back in March 2003, I asked Labour ministers Jim Sutton and Phil Goff for a number of documents relating to the GATS. They said I would have to pay around $600 (small beer in comparison to what is implied here). I appealed to the then Chief Ombudsman Anand Satyanand, not against the quantum but saying it was unreasonable for me to pay for information that could not be secured in any other way. After an exchange of memos, he agreed.
Trade Minister Jim Sutton said the government had made a considerable amount of information available to assist public understanding(sound familiar?). In a letter on 18 February 2004 the Ombudsman said that was not relevant:
My view is that public understanding of major public issues such as the GATS is best served through maximising the availability of information so that source material may be analysed for public discussion by a variety of parties. In this case, you sought access to the requested information in order to undertake your research, which ultimately will be available to persons interested in GATS. Any charge in the overall context would hinder that access.’
Further,
‘My opinion that it is unreasonable to impose a charge on Professor Kelsey in this instance is not because she is a public figure, but because of the strong public interest in fostering informed public understanding and discussion of a very important public issue. The fact that Professor Kelsey is a well known academic researcher and commentator is relevant only insofar as it indicates the extent to which she is likely to use the information to promote public understanding through informed debate of the issues’.
The then Minister agreed to waive the charges.
I trust the current Minister’s office and the Chief Ombudsman both have copies of this precedent; if not, I am happy to provide them.
What happens now? The government has until around 11 November to lodge an appeal. Who knows if they will. The PM indicated that this has much wider consequences for blanket refusals of information by other ministers. Meanwhile the judgement is live and the Minister and his colleagues need to be implementing the judge’s decision.
I have lodged updated OIAs, particularly for the study on which they base their ball park claim of $2.7 billion gain to GDP, which has not been released, and the reported answers they prepared for points they thought I would make once the negotiations were concluded.
The Chief Ombudsman has reacted defensively to the judgement that struck down a fundamentally flawed decision that she had legitimised. I am still waiting for her review of the Minister’s decision on the two outstanding categories. It would be nice to think her Office might imbibe some of the spirit of Anand Satyanand and actively facilitate access to information, so as to promote democratic debate and accountability of the government as foreshadowed by the Act.
Donations to the fighting fund for an appeal can be made at https://givealittle.co.nz/
+100
Jane – I have always been a fan or yours and appreciated all that you do. I am not sure if you are aware of a few of Noam Chomsky’s hidden agendas and if not – please think about checking it out before you consider including a picture of him in your article.
It is not flattering to you or your cause.
I was a fan of his but no more. People need to become aware of the world
GATEKEEPER and what it means and who they are and why.
http://www.educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskyindex.shtml
You right whingeRs always put overembalished claims. Taking one sentence out of context is a conspiracy question.
The articles are based on interviews where the interviewer asks Chomsky hypothetical questions. Which Chompsky replies to with well researched answers.
Taking one sentence and creating conspiracy theories out of one sentence does not compare to the amount of classified and unclassified material Chopmsky has access to.
If Chompsky says something. That’s about as good a reply as is possible.
I am not a right winger. Learn how to spell his name.
Check out what the term ” Left Gatekeeper ” really means.
Just because Chomsky says something, ( or for that fact, anyone else ) does not make it true. No one is taking anything out of context. Do some research.
Ahem. The guy you right whinger have fallen in love with, ‘Ken Adachi’ is a total rip off artist – http://soulsearcher80.tripod.com,
A conspiracy theory generator -_http://www.stewwebb.com/Gov%20Plant%20Ken%20Adachi%20STOOGE%20&%20APOLOGIST
The guy has more names than a drag queen. It appear his real name is “Peter Boudreau” and he appears to go to great lengths to try and remove (unsuccessfully) any website that contains his real name.
Here’s all his real contact info according to the tax audit office –
_http://educate-yourself.org/pitaro/Audit%20Notice%201.pdf
Here he’s “Robert Boudreau” :/ – _http://www.rense.com/ufo/comingatt.htmCopyright Robert Boudreau 1997For more information, contact:Educate-Yourself, Inc.PO Box 3046Costa Mesa, CA 92628
714-726-5098
Educate-Yourself@usa.netÝÝ
Nothing new here – this sort of angling has been going on for many years. If you feel compelled to distrust Chomsky for this kind of conspiracy scam artist, then that is your choice.
Sam
I do not distrust Noam about 95 % of the time and I feel he is a major intellect. Clearly he is hitting the nail on the head most of the time.
But he and Amy Goodman are Left Gatekeepers and that is a fact.
They both avoid talking about 9 / 11 and you need to find out for yourself just why that is and why so many have become more selective about what they hear and believe and read.
Educate yourself website is about putting out the truth that most deny and you have decided that because he wants to remain anonymous etc. . . that he must be up to something wrong and elicit.
Maybe you – the real right winger here – is a bit angry that that website is exposing that which you hold so dear.
So be it ! ====>>>> Dive into that which you fear.
You make disrespectful claims about Chompsky which I’m not going to investigate. What you should do is present your facts to the people who can investigate your theories. Instead of sending me anonymous messages, you should send your links to MP’s or military justice departments or publish your articles in accessible opinion columns in the Herald just like other people do.
Supporters of intelligent design publish opinions in journals so outsiders like me can evaluate what your claims are. I know enough about Chomsky to know you can’t learn enough in a couple hours. There is a reason we have political science because you can not grasp the concepts just roaming around the Internet.
I’m not going to spend years learning the structural background of The U.S. Deep state so I can make an evaluation of Chomsky’s role in the 9/11 debate. There’s a good reason not to do that because you yourself seem hell bent on diverting attention away from the 9/11 tragedy to assign blame onto Chomsky.
Your trying very hard to discredit Chomsky and your links are not credible in the first instance or at any other time.
It’s up to you what you believe. It’s not up to me to try and convince myself you are correct.
Go now in peace because I’m over it.
This completes my participation in this or any other forums with you.
Well the message and rational thought are more important than the name ,thankfully ad hominem attacks are less common now. I also admire Chomsky who has been better appreciated outside his homeland.And Prof Kelsey is a great public advocate.Thank you.Maybe we have to put our money or koha where out mouth is. https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/tppnosecrecy. “Anyone who goes against the grain in US political culture, is going to be marginalised,” says Barsamian. “The truths that Chomsky articulates are very unpopular.”
Chomsky has nevertheless managed to reach wider audiences, most notably with his book 9-11: Was There An Alternative? which put the attacks in the context of American intervention worldwide and became a bestseller.
A powerful tool for you to use is the New Zealnd Public Records Act (2005). All Government entities should now be compliant (and be able provide documentary proof to that effect from NZ Archives)
If the entity is not compliant then challenge them to explain why they are breaking the law 10 ears afterwards?!
The act says that all records (apart from personal records) need to be identified, stored, kept safe nd then disposed off appropriately. NB: even when a record IS disposed of (and this does not necessarily mean destruction), then another record must kept of the disposal(!)
I recommend you read the act and get advice from people who work in the area (Records managers)
Yes, I read it some time ago, but it is not all that guaranteed that records that should be kept, are always kept. The GDAs (General Disposal Authorities) the Chief Archivist issues allow for some records to be destroyed or deleted, with no records needing to be kept about this. Administrators bound by the Public Records Act can interpret some GDAs in ways that may enable them to get rid of some records like emails, when they can claim that these were only about less important matters. But what is important and what is less important, that is not always clear cut.
I know of a case where emails between a senior advisor within a Ministry’s department and an external advisor were ALL deleted, with the explanation that “many contacts” the Ministry’s advisor had, where “personal”.
They refused to explain how a person working in his official capacity was allowed to use his work email address for personal correspondence also.
So I would not be so trusting in the Public Records Act always being applied as it should be.
Brilliant work @ Prof’ Jane Kelsey. Thank you .
Jane – you are inspirational! And tireless!
It is a shame New Zealand journalist are ‘unable/unwilling’ to take the government to task (such as you have done) anymore.
Keep up the fight – “Government for the corporations, by the corporations’ – is a very scary thought.
And un-vote-out-able
Apology excepted
Justice Collins’ decision this week that Trade Minister Tim Groser acted unlawfully
Just to be picky, but Justice Collins did not declare that anyone had acted ‘unlawfully’.
As you state…
We had asked for Declarations that a number of aspects of the Minister’s decision were unlawful. We hoped this would provide some clearer interpretation of the provisions under which the Minister can withhold information. However, the judgement is rather scant on that. – See more at: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/10/16/exclusive-my-response-to-the-official-information-act-win-against-the-tppa/#comment-308300
We had asked for Declarations that a number of aspects of the Minister’s decision were unlawful…….
However, the judgement is rather scant on that.
Justice Collins ([3] [4]) was quite specific rather than scant. He specifically stated he was not making a declaration as you requested.
The two judges are dragging feet. Testing all other options rather than making the correct ruling in the first place.
The judge said “I have concluded [the Minister’s] approach did not comply with the Act and quashed the Minister’s decision for that reason. ie the Minister’s decision was unlawful. Justice Collins ordered the Minister to reconsider the request and did not consider that Declarations were necessary at this stage.
Hmm. Not quite the victory I thought it was when I first heard it on the radio.
But it is still an important victory inasmuch as it starts to identify and reveal actions of the minions involved in this cover up.
The Ombudsman, as a political appointment, is now starting to show woeful inadequacies. This has been my own personal experience of her as well.
She has effectively sidelined herself by trying too hard to support the Government. Wakem may need to wake up.
The reaction of Dear Leader also signals a particularly dark turn about to be made. He said the idea of blanket bans is a useful one. We can expect sorcery on the relevant laws.
I know the gentleman codenamed Josef Stalin thought blanket bans were useful too.
Beware the deep state…
And congratulations on what should be seen as a triumph. Some of us (not politicians) are very grateful for what you do.
Stonewall Jackson .
Thomas Jonathon ”Stonewall ” Jackson.
A great confederate General of the American civil war.
It is where we get the saying to ‘ stonewall ‘ any action or initiative taken.
And effectively this is the sort of tactics that are being used to delay , wear down , and hopefully diffuse dissemination of any incriminatory disclosure by the main players of the signatories of the TTPA.
This sort of tactic is well known in legal circles.
Any person with a moderation of intelligence can see there has been a secretive and dishonest attempt by this govt to practice just that. The fact that there is no real open and straight forward disclosure on the terms of this ‘ free trade deal ‘ automatically cuts out any but the most select and biased interests – which – would appear to be yet again in the interests of foreign corporations and those indigenous company’s who can no longer be classified as ‘ small business ‘ operators.
And in doing so – positions itself firmly as an autocratic and undemocratic measure that has no place in modern New Zealand society.
This is not what this nation was foundered on.
We are not to be treated as children. The age of political cynicism is well past…it is now a fact. When vested interests take precedence over the well being of a society that then becomes a source of malignancy.
Historically…this constant battle of the wills between those powerbrokers and everyday citizenry has played itself out over and over again.
However…perhaps because of complacency or other factors we have let ourselves slide back into a regressive form of ‘ modern ‘ state.
But the standards are still the same. Nothing changes.
Decency ….and honesty …are historically and universally recognized as desirable traits. When a govt acts in a secretive and autocratic manner…this then automatically destroys the very notion of a ‘ democracy ‘.
And it would appear…that many in govt hierarchy’s including the legal wing are dragging their feet and indulging in the act of ‘ stonewalling ‘ .
This very fact in its own right should be setting off alarms .
These are the first symptoms of a democracy in decline.
Jane Kelsey, well done, although it may not have achieved all you had hoped for. You are far more deserving to be a “Dame” than “Dame” Beverley Wakem. The Ombudsman is a watchdog without teeth, as I learned some time ago, same as the Health and Disability Commissioner.
It is time to rattle the cage more than we may have ever dared to rattle it.
Yes watched her this a.m. on the Nation, I felt none the wiser at the end of the interview with regards to stonewalling of OIAs
Basically there is no penalties for not honouring IOA legislation and very real consequences for the people whom blow the whistle or in extreme cases – live by the laws of the land.
Beverley Wakem was a bit befuddled, confused and seemed to not have the over-sight of her own office, that was my impression of the interview. She was very defensive, but had to concede she did not know about certain long running complaints. It is damned time she retires, she was meant to retire already, give her a bit of sherry and some late night music in a decent rest-home, so she can enjoy her matured days in peace.
We need an Ombudsman with TEETH, not just talking nice thinks about intentions and working hard, that gets us nowhere. And she even let off the government again, while admitting the average investigator here in NZ has 35 cases at their hands (used to be over 50), while overseas the accepted average limit is 25 cases.
Running a watchdog’s office on the smell of an oily rag is the best description of the state of affairs, it is not a good look.
No body seems interested in my finding WikiLeaks items on TPPa,
I wonder why ?
What. Where?
https:// WikiLeaks.org/hp-1p3
Criminlise whistleblowers by extending trade secret laws,without any mandatory exceptions for whisleblowers or investigative journalists.
End anonymity online by forcing every domain name to be associated with real name and address.
Make it illegal to unlock ,modify or generally tinker with any device you own .
There is more check it out.
So sorry a correction I meant to put.org ttp didn’t have my glasses on,any wonder people didn’t follow up on it.
Ive given myself a good slap on wrist.
Basically it is impossible for the stablishment to encrypt the internet because that will crash the sharemarket.
High frequency bots need open source information in order to bet on.
It might be helpful if you pasted the correct link. All I get are blanks.
ok Stephanie did correct it with the incorrect bit but here is full link
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-1p3
hope it works now.
I found now a 404 could be they have taken the link down ,but I think sam got it so if it didn’t work it says Try again later.
I tried last night and today. It doesn’t work. I don’t think Sam got it either. He was just responding to your summary.
I also found the article 404’d but Lucky I know enough about whistle blowing to know that bad behaviour is rewarded with hefty bonuses and good behaviour is rewarded with criticism, fines, jail terms ect ect.
The link I gave has been taken down.re new info from wikileaks re TPP
My source is
Charlie from FFTF info@list.fight for the future.org
newsletter on 16th oct 2015
its many many pages long,i didn’t get to the end because it seems to be in legalese,im not up to deciphering but the gist is in the original newsletter.
Dame Jane K.
yes if the link is reliable ,im sure prof kelsey will be on to it,i didn’t put all in the link because I thought she might want to enlarge in an article .
you people really need to move on there is nothing see here just trouble makers and rent a mob
Welcome to TDB and thank you for your very astute observation – you’re right about the people here except for me, I’m not a troublemaker or a rented mobster.
Just interested to know what Key is the god of.
Hair fondling?
Mendacity?
Toadying?
Bankrupting a country?
Puppetry?
Veneers?
What is he the god of to you?
We must be getting to them E-clectic, silly people trying to warn us off, keyisagod is a blasphemous title,he is the very opposite,but let the poor delusional soul have her say shes obviously under the weather.We have heard it all before.
Very annoying, they come in here leave their droppings and don’t respond to simple questions. Surely if one was to think that Key is a god then it would be very simple to enumerate his godlike virtues.
And, I have to say, I think I’ve showed amazing restraint in not mentioning the punctuation i.e. the lack of.
I gave pseudonym keyisagod, the benefit of doubt. Divine irony.
Sorry to offend you Mr Key or is it your mouthpiece? Key is a God
thank you jane for all your great work on this issue. You give us strength.
Tautoko Jane Kelsey. But – was there dust? Mainstream media as far as I’m aware have obediently kept Judge Collins’ decision secret. An unbearable silence. Meanwhile rugby takes centre stage. And some filthy rag they call a flag.
Welcome to Shadows, Sabotage and Despots!
Keep at them Prof! The issue of open government is as big as the tpp trap. It is remarkable how easy it is to subdue the population. Justice Collins is a CHICKEN.
Key is on a one way ticket, delivering the last of the family jewels to his masters in the USA.
He has god like status here in NZ with the upper middle class, who he promptly delivered tax cuts to, thanking them for voting him into power, then promptly hit us all with a gst increase of 2.5% which was explained as fiscally neutral.
He is seen as a financial guru by financial and political media commentators here in NZ.
God Help NZ.
new link for full trans pacific deal.from a new source.
http://futuristech.info/posts/wikileaks-has released-the full transpacific-partnership-documents
BREAKING NEWS
God Save NZ indeed, from the short term, profiteers. Both Chomsky (more appreciated outside his own country) and Prof Kelsey are admirable for standing up as public figures and intellectuals for democracy and transparency such as with TPP. Thankfully ad hominem attacks are less common. Bravo and thank you Jane. We are becoming more like USA, UK or Australia with our media bias. Lets hope the Greens and Labour both stay the course with challenging the secrecy and content of this part- trade contract. There will be current members like Goff who are very pro trade at almost any cost. “Anyone who goes against the grain in US political culture, is going to be marginalised,” says Barsamian. “The truths that Chomsky articulates are very unpopular.”
Chomsky has nevertheless managed to reach wider audiences, most notably with his book 9-11: Was There An Alternative? which put the attacks in the context of American intervention worldwide and became a bestseller.
Hard to argue with this:
A German’s View on Islam – well worth reading.
This is one of the best explanation s of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.’
‘My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
‘We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.’
‘The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.’
‘The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.’
‘The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians;most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
‘History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.’
‘Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.’
‘Now Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public schools in Ontario , and, yes, in Ottawa , too, while the Lord’s Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.’
‘In Australia , and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation’s shores.’
‘In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of “no-go” zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.’
‘As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts – the fanatics who threaten our way of life.’
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
Extend yourself a bit and send this on. Let us hope that thousands world-wide read this, think about it, and send it on before it’s too late, and we are silenced because we were silent!!!
Applies to proponants of TPP etc,if we don’t act decisively, we are the silent majority who allow it to happen and we WILL be owned.
Since I am openly contradicting this email, I will myself except criticisms of my take on it.
This is a stupid war the absolutely inept and dangerous western politicians totally lie about and trick the public into accepting
This email is Orwellian and terrifying. Not only was the emergence of ISIS the direct consequence of the chaos left over by the Iraq war — which was based on lies and inaccurate information — but the primary funders of the latest existential terrorist threat are America’s Persian Gulf allies.
The highest ISDS award has been for $2.3 billion to Occidental Oil Company against the government of Ecuador over its termination of an oil contract, even though the termination was apparently legal, Ecuador still had to pay out.
The TPPA has clear foreign policy explications in that we may in cure financial penalties if NZ in the future doesn’t want to do business with grubby little kingdoms who back Islamic extremists, and are our allies in more than just trade.
Painting all Islamic people with the same brush is exactly what created ISIS in the first place.
Islam doesn’t care if we choose to let woman drive cars, that doesn’t motivate people to blow themselves and buildings up. U.S. And other western imperial nations Bombing the crap out of the Middle East for the past 200 years is what motivates some one to say, “it’s your turn for reprisals.”
It is us. Not Islam that instigated reprisal attacks.
don’t think the author said it was anyone starting it ,but the sentiments are that if peaceful people stand by and do nothing we are lost ,that was my take on email sam
It’s just propaganda. The peace loving countries this guy speaks of rip of the Middle East daily. And haras, fine, jail Muslims now for a few hundred years.
I’m just pointing out the floors in this guys argument.
If it was me advising Obama : I would put Assad up in a silver palace.
Assad is not a long term leader but because of the amount of groups fighting he must go through a transition period.
So offer Assad full immunity when he hands over the rains and a place for him to live out his life away from Syria.
Then let the next Syrian Government sort out there problems with in there own infrastructure. No sanctions, no propaganda.
the guy is a psychiatrist, not a historian and not particularly culturally aware. He reeks of the fear mongering Islamophobe. A massive irrelevant distraction from the TPPA
its funny how we all read things differently ,the beginning of the piece talks about wars in the past, how many people died because peaceful people kept quiet, the islam piece is about now in history,i believe America started the problem by invading their countries, but innocent people get killed on both sides.
The part about muslims in uk is true,they don’t accept british law ,they accept only their own ,and try to change the law to suit their agenda,they have instigated the change in education ,they object to christianity but push sharia law and muslim beliefs, cant see us going into muslim countries and doing the same.Its easy to get all precious when you don’t experience the happenings.
The writerof the article was not so much attacking islam as saying , if people stand by and allow people to get killed and do nothing all is lost.
How on earth do you equate this with a distraction of TPP, my main aim of sending it was to show if we don’t fight the TPP and sit back and say nothing we have lost,but have it your way, not going to argue with you.
He claimed things that aren’t true and made massive generalisations. I lived in the UK writing about religion and spent a lot of time with people of different faiths from many cultures. I took my investigations to other parts of the world. What he says is untrue of the majority of Muslims living in the UK. Such claims that Muslims don’t accept British law demonstrates faith in Islamophobic propaganda.
I understood the message about silence, but that’s not the point. It doesn’t need propaganda which projects fear of Islam, to demonstrate it. Use Rosa Parks instead, perhaps.
It is completely false that ”muslims in uk … don’t accept british law”. The majority of Muslims living in the UK are peaceful law abiding citizens. I lived there, studied religions on a scholarship, and have friends and colleagues of many faiths including Islam. The suggestion that they are pushing Sharia law is faith based propaganda invented by fascists like the BNP. Extremism exists but does not represent the majority and are comparable to other organised gang or mafia related crime. I suggest that far right nationalist white supremacist groups are a greater threat.
or just remember Noam Chomsky: ‘”As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome.” Better than promoting falsehoods about Muslims.
Comments are closed.