Multi-Culturalism Undermines Free Speech

August 27, 2026
, , , , , Freedom of Speech, Maori, Multi-culturalism

By John McLean

It is a well-known but sordid fact that Labour governments will always seize on a particular outrage committed by one or two persons as an excuse to clamp down on the rights of everybody, e.g. the Christchurch mosques’ massacre and the Bondi shooting in Sydney, both of which led to a frenzy of State authoritarianism in respect of gun ownership and free speech.

Within 72 hours of the Christchurch massacre the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, announced a ban on military style automatic firearms, some of their related parts and all high capacity magazines – exactly what farmers need to control pests in the countryside. This was policy on the hoof purely for public perception – to use the excitement and horror of the massacres to “justify” such an attack on the age-old right of farmers and others to have an effective gun.

Ardern allowed only two days for Parliament to hear submissions on this important restriction and then the Bill was passed with the help of a frightened and, as usual, worthless National Party. David Seymour, ACT’s sole M.P., was the only one to keep his head and vote against it.

Ardern tried to justify this and her clampdown on “hate speech” by telling yet another of her many lies – “It would make New Zealand safer”. To any would-be gunman the law of the land is irrelevant; there are always ways to purchase what is illegal, e.g. drugs. Although virtually ineffective, Ardern’s law did manage to achieve one object: it did inconvenience farmers who, like employers, landlords, evangelical Christians and self-employed business people, were very high on her “hate list” and are still very high on the Labour Party’s hate list.

Her government also tried to use the massacre to limit the individual’s right to free speech – a form of censorship that Ardern has devoted herself to ever since she was hounded out of office by the power of the anti-vaccine movement. In the words of her Justice Minister, Andrew Little, “In New Zealand our political and social culture has been very defensive of the rights of free speech. We err on the side of letting people say stuff”. And so we damned well should.

Speech did not cause the Christchurch massacre; an evil man with a gun did – and he wasn’t even a New Zealander. Speech does not kill and there is no justification in using a single criminal act as an excuse to limit the right of the free speech of everybody. Our centuries old right of free speech belongs to the people and not to some passing jacks-in-office such as Ardern and Andrew Little. If we’re not free to say what we think, we no longer live in a free society.

Labour politicians in Australia hate free speech every bit as much as their New Zealand counterparts as they showed in the aftermath of the Bondi shootings of fifteen people in 2025. In Canberra the Albanese government rushed in and passed within a matter of weeks an ill-thought out statute called The Combatting Anti-Semitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026. As in the Christchurch case it has nothing to do with making Australia safer since the two gunmen were Islamic immigrants whose ingrained hatred of Israel and Jews did not need to be further advanced by any “anti-Semitic” tract or booklet.

The real purpose of the Act seems to be to ban certain political parties which, by telling certain truths outside the Establishment lies, might take voters away from the two main parties (just as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is doing at present). Part IV of this sinister Act allows the government to prohibit certain organisations as “hate groups”. In other words, the law is being weaponised against any party whose arguments can’t be met by the Establishment. Just like in Germany where there are moves to ban the popular AFD party which is, in fact, the largest opposition group in Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, where it holds 151 seats and is poised for greater things.

So, what sort of organisation in Australia is being targeted as a “hate” group so dangerous that it has to be destroyed by the law? The first target of the new statute is a party called the White Australia Party, described as “a right wing political party”. Oh dear! Can’t have that.

This party wants to limit immigration from the Third World so as to preserve Australia’s European population and heritage. Nothing wrong with that – a policy with enormous potential for disenchanted Australians who see every day – especially in Melbourne – more and more of their streets being taken over by Indians and other Asians. Furthermore, this “white Australia” policy was the very policy that Australia followed very rigidly for the first 187 years of its 238 year history (1788 to 1975). So, a policy that was acceptable to Australians for several generations and widely supported by them is now considered so dangerous by Albanese and his mafia that any groups advocating it must be BANNED.

On the other hand they have not used the legislation to ban any radical Islamic group of the type that provides background to certain violent Islamic criminals. As I said, the legislation is not about making Australia safer but about preventing potentially popular ideas from taking root and developing. The rise in popularity of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has frightened the Establishment (both Labour and Liberals) so much that they cannot risk anything like the White Australia party developing in a similar way. Just like when One Nation was taking off and so they imprisoned Pauline Hanson on false charges for ten weeks.

So much for the government in Canberra but the New South Wales state government was no less opportunistic in pushing through rushed laws to protect the Jewish community and put many thousands of taxpayer dollars into the hands of Jewish groups. It should be noted that the Labour Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Chris Minns, has long been groomed by Israel to do its dirty work abroad. In 2003 Israel gave him an all expenses paid trip to Israel on the Israel Ramham junket programme which aims to capture young Western politicians at an early stage and groom them to be a reliable asset for Israel and Jews in general.

In the immediate aftermath of the Bondi shootings Minns repaid all this care and attention by pushing through rushed laws, restricting the right of protest. This was aimed primarily at Palestinians who were periodically protesting against Israel’s genocide of the Arabs in the Gaza Strip. These rushed laws – in the name, of course, of “community safety” – were later struck down unanimously by the judges of the Court of Appeal as “unconstitutional”.

In defence of his war against free speech Chris Minns bleated: “We don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multi-cultural country”. This is a most revealing comment as it admits that what flows from a multi-cultural society is a restriction on free speech in order to accommodate such an unnatural and dangerous phenomenon as “multi-culturalism”.

In the words of former German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, “We always knew it; the idea of a multi-cultural society cannot succeed. It is doomed to failure from the start.” And the distinguished Canadian psychologist and author, Jordan Peterson, “Multi-culturalism is unlikely to succeed due to differing characteristics of different cultures. If you think you can import a multitude of cultures without a unifying rubric and not import the problem of interpersonal and social conflict, you’re either blind or stupid or both.”

Not one voter in Australia or New Zealand has ever been asked whether we want to share these two great countries that were built by British settlers with all sorts of riff raff from the Third World. Instead, this important decision to destroy traditional demographics was taken by arrogant and treasonable political parties such as Labour and National in New Zealand and Labour and the Liberals in Australia.

It is time for the ordinary people of Australia and New Zealand to take back control of our destinies once and for all by quitting the parties that have been responsible for this terrible treason. No wonder parties like the White Australia party have to be banned; it’s all part of the price of the unnatural and destructive multi-culturalism that has been forced on us by the permanent political elite.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON – Enemy of New Zealand?

August 16, 2026
, , , , , Maori, New Zealand Government, NZ Parliament, The National Party

By John McLean

Christopher Luxon might be a bit short on governing skills but when it comes to selfishness and lack of patriotism he seems to be right up there at the top – as shown by his reaction to not one but two challenges to his ineffectual leadership by National M.P.s in the last few months. A more honest and patriotic man would look beyond his own egotism and selfishness by considering the good of both the National Party and New Zealand. Since he became Prime Minister he has shown both his incompetence and his nastiness on several occasions.

When he was Leader of the Opposition the 1Law4All organisation printed a booklet entitled “Are We Being Conned By The Treaty Industry?”. It called for One Law For All New Zealanders and no special race-based legal privileges for those who are one-eighth or one-sixteenth (or whatever) Maori.

This was seen by the tribal elite as a threat to their ever growing power and so they kicked up a stir in the media. When asked about the booklet Luxon, in order to ingratiate himself with the Left wing media, damned it as “racist”. What? For advocating the same laws for everybody!!!!!! This was a straight out lie as nothing in the booklet was (or is) racist.

This instance of deceit and nastiness is not untypical of the man. As part of the Coalition agreement with ACT National was committed to supporting David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to its First Reading. After that, National would have the right to make up its own mind and, by our constitutional practice, that might have been expected to be after the hearing of public Submissions, which took place between the First Reading of the Bill and its Second Reading.

However, at the Waitangi circus in February, 2025, Luxon was “got at” by the thugs of the tribal elite and so immediately after returning from Waitangi he announced that National would not support the Bill at its Second Reading. By refusing to wait for what might have come out of the public Submissions to the Bill, he showed that cowardice is yet another one of his unpleasant characteristics.

In order to ingratiate himself further with the tribal elite and other enemies of a New Zealand where we would all have the same legal rights, Luxon said that there was “nothing at all” that he liked about this Bill – a Bill that was motivated by the noble and democratic principle of One Law For All, and that he ruled out the inclusion of such a measure in any future Coalition arrangements with ACT and NZ First. He hates the idea of all New Zealanders having equal rights and deserves in return the contempt of all New Zealanders who value democracy and equality.

It doesn’t take too many brains to realise that Luxon is leading the National Party to likely defeat in November. As that wise old owl, Peter Williams, recently stated on RCR, “The National Party is a shambles with a leader and senior M.P.s whose egos matter more than the good of the country.”

This downward path could have been rectified at either of the two recent leadership challenges but for Luxon’s selfishness in refusing to resign. He has no concern for the future of the country – just for his own personal position.

The thing is bigger than him or even the National Party itself as a Labour led government of Greens, TOP, and the Maori Party would be a fate worse than death. Little Hipkins wouldn’t last long as the neo-Marxist, Kieran McAnulty, appears to be just waiting in the wings to stick the knife into his leader’s back so that he and his fellow Marxist sympathisers would have carte blanche to steal our property and our rights and to undermine the economy. Just like Grant Robertson, Ardern and little Hipkins did in the last Labour government by so recklessly increasing borrowing to such heights that it is unlikely ever to be repaid, the interest becoming more and more a burden for future generations.

Luxon lacks a spine and the only times that his government has shown any courage have been when Winston Peters and David Seymour have provided the spine that otherwise would have been lacking. It is time for this utterly inadequate Prime Minister to put his country ahead of himself for a change. All he has to do is drive to Government House and tender his resignation. I am sure that there are thousands of people who would volunteer to be the chauffeur.

SHOULD TAXPAYERS PAY FOR BUILDING A CHURCH?

June 30, 2026
, , , , New Zealand Government

By John McLean

In the wake of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, which ended once and for all the centuries old French threat to England, the British Government, in gratitude to God for Wellington’s victory, provided a million pounds to the Church of England to build churches in newly developing areas. These were known as the “Waterloo churches”. To this was later added another half million in 1824.

Since then governments have followed the sound policy of not using taxpayer/ratepayer money for building churches that, by their very nature, are for the benefit of believers of one sect only. In other words, if believers want a church, the religion and its members should pay for it. However, this wise and fair policy is being jettisoned in respect of the potential rebuilding of the Church of England’s cathedral in Christchurch which collapsed in the 2011 earthquake.

Already the rebuilding fund has received or been promised $25 million by the Ardern government in 2018 (a $10 million grant plus a $15 million interest free loan), and another $3 million from the Christchurch City Council. And now Winston Peters, for no other purpose than to buy votes in Christchurch with taxpayers’ money, has said that, in the event of re-creating the coalition government after the election, he will INSIST on the Government coughing up another $15 million to the Anglican Church for this purpose.

He has been in politics for so long that he seems to regard taxpayers’ money as a slush fund for him and his party to dip their hands into for their own political purposes, e.g. the utterly worthless Provincial Growth Fund that he got Ardern to agree to – a billion dollars a year – and which his colleague, Shane Jones, dished out to areas that had voted for NZ First or which were being targeted by that Party for the future. If Mr. Peters, not a noticeable churchgoer, is so keen to see the cathedral rebuilt, then why doesn’t he dip into his own millions and make a personal donation?

The cathedral (either whole or fallen down) and the land it stands on is owned by the extremely rich Anglican Church. If they failed to insure it, then they should bear the loss themselves and not expect the hard-pressed taxpayer to cough up.

A further reason why public money should not be used in its rebuilding is that hardly anyone goes to church these days and so why is such a large and expensive new building needed? And the reason why they no longer attend church is because the Church of England – as well as other organised mainstream “Christian” churches – has been taken over by too many “woke”, Left-wing, socialist clergy who prefer to preach politics rather than religion from the pulpit and so one may as well stay at home on a Sunday morning and read the Bible for an hour rather than subject oneself to Left wing indoctrination that is more and more the antithesis of Christ’s message and biblical teaching.

The drift of true believers away from mainstream churches began in the 1960s and 1970s when both the World Council of Churches (which includes the Church of England) and the Vatican started supporting violent revolution against the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa. Instead of preaching salvation in Christ, they started preaching salvation from capitalism and from what their little Left wing minds regarded as “political oppression”. It was called “liberation theology”, which the Catholic Church practised in Latin America as well, with the ever troublesome and Protestant-hating Jesuits in the vanguard. In Nicaragua the Marxists of the Sandinista movement were joined and often directed by Jesuits, three of whom became Ministers in the revolutionary regime. The bloody Sandinista revolution led to c. 80,000 deaths out of a 1979 population of only 3,164,525. The newly invented “Catholic Social Teaching” is simply Marxism in clerical garb.

Resisting governments of any kind has no foundation in Scripture – quite the contrary. In his epistle to the Romans (13.1-2) Saint Paul wrote: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors” while Saint Matthew’s gospel (22.21) states: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”. At the time the government of the Roman Empire in which these words were written was absolute and not always fair.

The height of this Left wing, anti-Christian crusade by clerical wolves in sheep’s clothing was reached in 1966 when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, in violation of the Fifth Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, started screaming for Britain to declare war on the settlers in Rhodesia, which would have involved British people killing British people. Fortunately, the then Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, showed that he had a better understanding of the Ten Commandments and he rejected Ramsey’s hate-filled suggestion.

The Anglican Church is committed to supporting acts of violence against so-called “right wing” governments that get up the nose of its bigoted bishops. The Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in 1988 declared that it “understood” those [the terrorists who were committing brutal murders in the black townships of South Africa] who “after exhausting all other ways, chose the way of armed struggle as the only way to justice”. (Natal Witness, 8 August, 1988) Among the crimes that their dear terrorists were committing were “necklacing” (murder by putting burning rubber tyres around the necks of their fellow blacks whom they regarded as “stooges” of the government). In the intervening years the Anglican bishops of New Zealand have never renounced this violent affront to the Fifth Commandment and yet these are the ones who are now screaming for decent, peace loving New Zealand taxpayers to cough up for their vanity project in Christchurch.

A further reason why taxpayers and ratepayers should not pay a penny to the Anglican Church for rebuilding their cathedral is that the Church itself, never having paid tax like the rest of us, is RICH beyond all imagination. Having been operating in New Zealand since the beginning of settlement it managed to obtain vast tracts of land from early Governors for either a very small payment or no payment at all – always claiming its “charitable” status.

It owns large tracts of land in Auckland’s rich eastern suburbs as well as schools, farms, forests and other investments all over the country. True, it has offered $38 million from its own funds towards the Christchurch cathedral rebuilding but its wealth would enable it to pay the whole lot without apparent difficulty.

However, the main reason why the proposed new cathedral should not receive a penny of public money is that the upper hierarchy of the Anglican Church in New Zealand consists largely of dishonest liars who are doing immense damage to New Zealand’s social fabric. Their revised church constitution of 1992 introduced a form of apartheid into their own organisation as they divided their Church into three race-based segments, each with equal authority:
Maori
“tikanga Pakeha” (Europeans)
“tikanga Pasefika” (presumably New Zealanders of Pacific Islands blood)

The Church of England is now trying to impose this form of race apartheid on the whole country in various ways, e.g. supporting race based “Maori wards” on local body councils.

Furthermore this 1992 constitution under which their Church operates has formally adopted the principle of “partnership” in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi even though it was a treaty of cession and never a “partnership”, that word not being mentioned in the document and in fact not even having been dreamt up until the 1970s. Article 1 of the Treaty states: “The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire Sovreignty[sic] of their country”. Couldn’t be clearer.

The Church is so unsure of itself in propagating this lie that, in their Submission to ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, they had to resort to the further lie that they “reject the notion that the underlying principles of Te Tiriti and its current interpretation [“partnership”] are a recent invention”. Which is exactly what they are.

And anyway why should a Church become so involved in what is a political and legal matter? In the grounds of Saint Mary’s Anglican Cathedral in New Plymouth they even had a big billboard urging people to “Oppose the Treaty Principles Bill”. By way of explanation it should be pointed out that this particular church has long been a hotbed of hatred against white civilisation and colonisation in general. It seems that they would have preferred the Maoris of New Plymouth to continue being the victims of tribal warfare, slavery and cannibalism. Anything except the rule of the horrid “white man”.

By trying to drive the knife of separatism through our society the Church of England is one of the least deserving institutions to receive taxpayer dollars – especially since it doesn’t pay any tax itself. In its present state much of its hierarchy – especially the upper clergy – are liars and hypocrites who are causing untold damage to our society by advocating racial division and giving virtually unlimited support to every greedy, race-based demand of the tribal elite regardless of its merits. Of course, not all Anglican clergy are of this stripe. There are many good vicars who are more interested in preaching the gospel than playing politics but these are not usually promoted to the higher and better paid positions because they are not considered “safe” by the woke elite who have well and truly taken over the upper echelons of the Church.

It is an insult to every taxpayer or ratepayer to give money to this socially destructive organisation and the $25 million that the government has committed should be revoked forthwith – as should the $3 million from the spendthrift Christchurch City Council.

Christ owned only the clothes that He wore and the tools in His carpenter’s shop, and the extreme wealth of the Anglican Church (and other Churches) is an affront to Christianity. Apart from an opening ceremony the proposed new cathedral would never be filled. The people of Christchurch would be better off living their lives according to the Bible instead of listening to biased and often hate-filled political sermons inside a half empty, $220 million building financed largely by unwilling taxpayers – both Anglican and non-Anglican. It is time to pull the plug of public money for this unnecessary monstrosity. Let it be built with the Anglican Church’s own money and not ours.

1 2 3 4 … 23
Copyright © 2023 Tross Publishing. All rights reserved.