CORRUPTION OF LANGUAGE AND LAW

'When men cannot change things they change words.' Roman proverb.

'Righteousness raises a people to honour;
to do wrong is a disgrace to any nation.' -- King Solomon (Proverbs 14:34).

What a hypocritical nation New Zealand is! Its national anthem is a great and fervent prayer to Almighty God titled 'God defend New Zealand', and that phrase is repeated all through its five verses. Over and over and over again, countless times over the years, New Zealanders have proudly raised their voices in 'God defend New Zealand' and have sung out their plea to God to 'make our country good and great', to 'make its praises heard afar',  to 'bless this place', to 'guard our country's spotless name', to 'let our cause be good and right'. The last verse of the anthem ends with a great cry to God:

'Make us faithful unto thee,
God defend our free land.
Guide her in the nations‘ van,
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out thy glorious plan,
God defend New Zealand.'

And the New Zealand Parliament begins each sitting day with this prayer:

'Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.'

But now the New Zealand Parliament and if the opinion-polls are right the majority of New Zealanders are about to treat God, the truth, Jesus Christ, and God's glorious plan with obscene contempt. They are about to change the country's laws on marriage so that they will no longer be true, they will no longer adhere to God's glorious plan, they will no longer have anything to do with the facts of life and the real world.

Marriage rightly is and always has been the union, the literal joining, of a man and a woman. They are joined sexually, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, and therefore legally. The legality is the seal on the actual union. The man and the woman truly become one flesh, first and foremost sexually: they are literally joined at the hip. And from that union children will normally come. Marriage is the union by which society extends itself through time and space. That is only possibly when a male and a female sexual organ are mutually engaged--an erect penis and a vagina. A rectum, a finger, a fist, etc., are not sexual organs; they cannot make sexual union.

Marriage is not, as the common New Zealand myth has it, 'only a piece of paper.' It is the actual union of a man and a woman, sealed by law. It cannot be anything else. To change the meaning of the word is to change it from the truth to an obscene and socially-destructive lie.

But now with lying slogans like 'marriage equality' a tiny but very vociferous minority is pretending that it is being discriminated against, that it is being denied marriage. For although marriage is only sexually, logically and linguistically possible between a man and a woman, they want to turn language, truth, reality, and right and wrong upside down and inside out so that they can call two men or two women 'married.' But interfering with the word does not change the fact that two of the same sex cannot be sexually joined. That is possible only with two mutually admissible sex-organs; it is possible only with a penis and a vagina; it is possible only with the union that will in normal circumstances bring children into the world.

No one is being discriminated against. If you are of age and there is no incest or other valid impediment you are free to marry. If you are a man you a free to find an agreeable woman; if you are a woman you are free to find an agreeable man; when a man and a woman agree to marry they are free to marry. There is no discrimination.

The 'discrimination' claimed by homosexuals does not exist. It is not discrimination to define the word marriage as the union of a man and a woman and exclude all other meanings any more than it is discrimination to define blue as only the colour of the sky and exclude the colour of blood, grass, buttercups, etc. To use any word truly and correctly is not discrimination. The attempt to change the meaning of marriage is a blatant lie that will degrade the institution and meaning of marriage and flies in the face of Almighty God who ordained it.

God loves homosexuals with divine love, and everyone must love them with neighbourly and brotherly love, but no one should love unrighteous acts or attempts to justify them with lying slogans and the alteration of human laws. God's laws do not change, because they rest on eternal truth. No matter how much 'democracy' may be manipulated with vociferous propaganda it cannot change eternity.

The great words of the Marriage Service speak eternal, immutable truths: 'DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church: which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. If any man can show just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.'

When a nation rebels against God it must expect punishment. It can sing 'God defend New Zealand' all it pleases, but he will not defend those who defy him. He will punish the nation that does, he will in love punish it to bring it back to him; so if New Zealand goes ahead with this obscenity it will bring that consequence upon itself. What we sow we reap. 

If we sow the wind we will reap the whirlwind.

NZ DOES NOT HAVE FREE AND FAIR LOCAL-BODY ELECTIONS

New Zealanders quite rightly look down on countries where repressive or manipulative regimes prevent elections from being free and fair, from being truly democratic--i.e., elections in which anyone can stand and anyone can vote and there is no interference with the ballot-paper before the election or during it.

But under the heading of elections for local government, New Zealand's elections have not been free and fair since at least 2002, because a corrupt trio of key officials have been interfering behind the scenes with the ballot-papers by severely restricting who can be on them.

Democracy is representative government. If it is prevented from being representative it is not democracy. That corrupt trio of officials, by their wilful failure to comply with excellent statute, have ensured that New Zealand's local-government elections cannot possibly be representative.

If people are to do a full-time job they must be alive, they must be housed and clothed and have enough money to be able to transport themselves about. Those elected to local government in New Zealand are elected to a full-time job for three years. But if the remuneration set for them is not enough, even for those basic requirements, then the only people who free to do stand for election are ones who have independent means.

But because the corrupt trio called the Remuneration Authority has wilfully ignored statute, because it has wilfully ignored the clear, simple mandatory criteria for setting remuneration that Parliament has laid down in Clause 7 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002), there are many local-government elected positions that are paid so little that only those of independent means can stand. That means the ballot-paper is being restricted to a tiny, unrepresentative sample of people. It is not available to all. That is not democracy. Therefore local-government elections in New Zealand are not free and fair.

It is instructive that the Remuneration Authority never cites Clause 7 of Schedule 7 when issuing its determinations. It cannot, because it does not adhere to it. Instead it adheres to what has become known as the Pool Formula, a weird, complicated formula invented by a former chair of the Authority, a formula that would make Einstein's head spin, and has nothing to do with sense, or the real world, or democracy, or the rule of good law.

And Clause 7 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 is very good law:

7 Mandatory criteria for Remuneration Authority
(1) In determining remuneration under clause 6, the Remuneration Authority must have regard to the need to—
(a) minimise the potential for certain types of remuneration to distort the behaviour of the persons listed in clause 6(1) in relation to their positions as listed in clause 6(1); and
(b) achieve and maintain fair relativity with the levels of remuneration received elsewhere; and
(c) be fair both—
(i) to the persons whose remuneration is being determined; and
(ii) o ratepayers; and
(d) ttract and retain competent persons.
(2) The criteria in subclause (1) do not prevent the Remuneration Authority from determining allowances additional to salary for attending meetings.

But because of the infamous Pool Formula and the corruption of the Remuneration Authority in the setting of local-government remuneration many people elected to local government are paid less than $10,000--even as little as $206 a year. That is glaringly in breach of Clause 7. Councillors on the old Auckland Regional Council were the lowest-paid regional councillors in the country, paid only $22,000 for a seniour management position--about half what their counterparts in Wellington were on.

Section 238 of the LGA2002 says explicitly that failure to comply with the Act is an offence, and directs us to section 242 under which offenders are to be haled into the District Court and fined up to $5000. But when that was attempted against the Remuneration Authority the judge who was on duty that week in a backroom of the Auckland District Court blocked the case from coming to court. How? By lying. She ruled that failure to comply with the mandatory criteria in Clause 7 of Schedule 7 of the LGA2002 'is not an offence known to law.' Section 238 clearly says it is. How did she get away with that? The first level of her lie was to pretend that a case in an English court in Battersea in the 1940s gave her the authority, which was of course nonsense because it was the wrong jurisdiction, the wrong country and the wrong century, so it had no bearing on New Zealand now. But her lie was a double lie, because the English case did not say what she quoted it as saying. She made it up.

The corruption got worse, because when the documentary evidence of her arrant lies was put before the Judicial Conduct Commission he found in her favour!!!

New Zealand's unfair, unfree local-body elections continue...