Ok.
Compare what ACT said about Gaza…
ACT’s Simon Court accused MPs of bandying around “Hamas propaganda”, described Chlöe Swarbrick’s description of the situation in Gaza as “hallucinating outrage”, and intimated that the UN agency UNRWA was “enabling terrorism”.
…now compare what Chloe said…
“I will reiterate my call for the government to pick up our Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill and to sanction Israel for its war crimes. If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history”.
…now tell me Zionist Apologist Simps don’t own NZs Parliament!
Firstly, ACT MP Simon court is a disgrace to this country’s mana for attempting to smear anyone criticising Israel’s genocide as a Hamas propagandist. I’d call Simon a cunt, but he lacks the depth and warmth.
Secondly, Chloe was well within her rights to criticise National because they are too weak to tell ACT, NZ Jewish Council and Israel Institute of NZ
REMEMBER this isn’t about ACT or Chloe, this is about Israel butchering Palestinian Civilians at a rate so deplorably high that it amounts to a fucking war crime genocide!
REMEMBER David Seymour had the audacity to claim Chloe was…
…yet David was the one who literally tried to drive a tractor up the stairs of Parliament.
REMEMBER ‘Spineless’ has been used over 60 times according to Hansard yet no one was likened out for the whole week over that!
Compare what ACT said and what Chloe said over Gaza and tell me Zionist Apologist Simps don’t own NZs Parliament!
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
Regardless of what you think of Swarbrick, David Seymour is just a detestable little shit and Simon Court is a nut job.
Martyn, I had dinner with my favourite niece last night. She is an over achieving lawyer and also a fairly left leaning politically. She made the point, in court the judge is the highest ranking person there, if the judge instructs her to do something, she doesn’t challenge him in open court, even if she disagrees with him, or she believes that he is wrong. She has the option of having a more forthright conversation in chambers.
The speaker of parliament is in the same position as the judge in his court. Chloe swarbrook openly defied “the speaker”, not Jerry Browne, Parliament.
I would be taken to task if I called my colleagues as “spineless” during a meeting or presentation at work, and I would have to apologise to them.
Yet spineless has been used in Parliament 60 odd times before with no objections. Sounds like you and your niece are more interested in the approval of your peers than defending truth.
Is that why we have a history of so many not guilty people locked up
your niece sounds like a loser. Brownlee deserves less respect than s**t on a shoe
No matter what you think of Brownlee, he is the speaker of the House. Disrespecting the speakers instruction to apologise to the house, is similar to disrespecting a judge in his court.
As someone once said, Captain Sobel, you salute the rank, not the man.
Oh fuck off
Cool story bro…
Meanwhile, you can read the details of how Brownlee made it up as he went along and needed to invent new rules to cover his fat ass.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/thehouse/570198/spine-and-punishment-a-review-of-swarbrick-v-brownlee
I’m sure your “relative” wouldn’t tolerate a judge who did the same in court.
Bear in mind, Brownlee is a failed woodworking teacher, who wanted to shove an elderly man down the stairs because he didn’t like him talking
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/humbled-mp-accepts-ruling-on-assault-case/F2R7NNREAD6WKEYQFHQ6YII5PI/
Who completely botched the Christchurch rebuild and enabled all sorts of fraud and corruption.
Who barged through airport security.
Who couldn’t take criticism following the Kaikoura quakes.
Who only has the job as Speaker because his Christchurch Tory electorate had had enough of the useless prick.
And probably can’t contest another electorate without stroking out.
He doesn’t sound like a balanced and reasonable individual at all given his patterns of behavior.
Now, care to revisit your defence of the “Eater of the House”?
Tell your niece she is not supposed to deepthroat the boot.
The word “spineless”, which Chloe did not use, appears 61 time in Hansard records from 1954 to 1999.
There are many reasons why the general public despise lawyers. You just gave us all another one.
This is not a court room..its a debating chamber, and Brownlee is not a judge..what the fuck are on about..
The arrogant little prick harps on about our lack of production continually. Would one of our 4th estate enquire of him as to what David has produced?
Only methane as far as I can see.
What is coming across so glaringly obvious is this government LACKS HUMANITY,
It seems for the Three Ringed Circus that is this Weak coalition government that keeping in the ‘good books’ with Donald Trump is reason why they are not doing anything about Sanctioning Israel for this Active Genocide.
Three National and ACT MPs come to mind in regards to how Weak and Nasty they are to HUMANITY. They are Brooke Van Velden and her comment about being amazed at the high value put on saving lives when COVID hit our shores.
The other is Judith Collins who whilst once leader of National expected the low income NZ workers to pay out their OWN pockets for the COVID vaccines.
And the third is Simon O’connor who posted in regards to the Overturning of the Roe v Wade Right to Abortion was curtailed in the US that the event was a “Good Day”.
You mentioned about Simon Court comment which also makes me question whether he has or possesses a Human Bone in His body??!!!
And Spineless Seymour about Chloe’s actions by referring it as “Peak Theatrics” comes across as him belittling a female who is making a very valid and rational statement. But then Seymour does seem to be very Misogynistic and I pity the intended wifey that will have to live with him.
Think of the growing number of people world wide who know Chloe Swarbrick was ejected from the New Zealand Parliament for supporting Palestinians.
Think of those Members of ACT, National and New Zealand First who unanimously voted to eject her. Not one dissension.
Chloe does well to call these people cowards.
100% Shadrach. Also notable is how they attack her with cheap shots about being egotistical (Young, Seymour) in the process belittling and denigrating and totally taking the focus off what she is actually saying and having the sheer strength and gumption to stand by her words. She is so brave and strong. She and Willy Jackson are my current political heroes.
I agree.
Just a tip – don’t be having a cup of tea while reading this piece!
Zionism, as a nationalist movement supporting the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in the historic Land of Israel, has had a significant impact on Western parliamentary systems and their interactions with related institutions. Here are some keyways it influences these dynamics:
1. Foreign Policy & Diplomatic Relations
Many Western parliaments (especially in the U.S., UK, Canada, and EU states) have strong pro-Israel blocs due to historical ties, lobbying efforts (e.g., AIPAC in the U.S.), and shared democratic values.
This can lead to bipartisan support for Israel, affecting resolutions on conflicts (e.g., Israel-Palestine), military aid, and diplomatic recognition.
Some left-wing and progressive parties, however, have grown more critical of Israeli policies, particularly regarding settlements and Gaza, leading to intra-parliamentary debates.
2. Domestic Political Divisions
Zionism can become a polarizing issue, especially where there are large Jewish and Muslim communities (e.g., UK Labour Party’s antisemitism crisis under Corbyn, or debates in France over “anti-Zionism” vs. antisemitism).
Right-wing parties often strongly align with Zionist positions, while some left/green parties support Palestinian rights, creating legislative gridlock on Middle East policies.
3. Institutional Influence & Lobbying
Pro-Israel advocacy groups work closely with lawmakers to shape legislation, leading to accusations of undue influence (e.g., debates over “dual loyalty” or foreign interference).
Conversely, pro-Palestinian activism (like BDS movements) has pushed some parliaments to debate sanctions on Israel, though many Western states have anti-BDS laws.
4. Free Speech & Legal Challenges
Some parliaments have struggled to balance support for Israel with free speech, as criticism of Zionism is sometimes conflated with antisemitism (e.g., IHRA definition controversies in the EU).
This affects parliamentary discourse, with some MPs cautious about condemning Israeli policies to avoid backlash.
5. Intelligence & Security Cooperation
Israel’s close ties with Western intelligence agencies (e.g., Mossad with MI6/CIA/FBI) mean parliaments often defer to executive branches on security matters, limiting oversight.
Conclusion
Zionism’s impact varies by country but often reinforces pro-Israel stances in Western legislatures, while also fueling partisan splits. The tension between supporting Israel and addressing Palestinian rights challenges parliamentary cohesion, especially as younger, more progressive lawmakers question traditional alliances.
Free Palestine
Chloe gets my vote next election
Personally, I think the Zionist should fuck of back to wherever they come from as we don’t need their rubbish and bullshit here in our county. Also, I noticed many of them (Zionist) are anti Maori another good reason for them to fuck of.
Comments are closed.