Leighton Smith Podcast #260 - October 16th 2024 - Roger Partridge

Politics has always been a scene of changing alliances. Law and freedom have always gone together, but judicial activism now casts a shadow over that connection. Rights have in the past been a formulation of the essentials of freedom, but utopians have learned to turn a vast range of rights into the blueprint for some supposedly largest social perfection. That is why vigilance and political connoisseurship are necessary in sustaining

the practices of our free world. The author of the book was Kennethmanogue, Kywe born and bred, lived most of his life in the Northern Hemisphere, specifically in London, where he was a professor at the London School of Economics. He was an economist, but he was also known very widely as a philosopher, and a very good one. He came back to New Zealand to do a speech. I think it might have been a Sir John Graham's speech, and that is where I met him, and memory serves

me correctly, I interviewed him. But that's beside the point. The point is that we've reached the stage that men like Kenneth Minogue, and there's a list of others could see coming. The second quote I want I want to utilize is by Robert Bork, a judge in America, and he was a candidate for the Supreme Court, and he was destroyed by the present President of the United States.

Robert Bork coercing virtue the worldwide rule of judges quick quote judicial activism, the ordering of results not supported by any reasonable interpretation of the constitution. They have their written constitution. We have our unwritten constitution. May be rampant, but it

is completely unsupportable. Numerous attempts at justification have been made by academic lawyers and by left wing activist groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and more recently by heated statements from the leaders of the American Bar Association that swing should not be surprising. Some people will always rally around the center of power, particularly if it is the center most accessible to them and it produces the

results that they want. Now, as you would already be aware because you've seen it in the notes or heard it on the radio, this podcast centers around the New Zealand Supreme Court. Tuesday afternoon, the fifteenth of October, which, as this is being released on the sixteenth, was just yesterday, the New Zealand Initiative add its chairman, released a paper written by Roger Partridge, who is a lawyer and the

chairman of the New Zealand Institute. It's called Who Makes the Law Reigning in the Supreme Court and the report challenges the Supreme Court's recent decisions and their implications for our constitutional balance. So, in the discussion that follows, how the Supreme Court has adopted a loose approach to interpreting

laws passed by Parliament. The Court's reshaping of the common law based on judge's perceptions of changing social values and the consequences of judicial overreach for them, critic legitimacy and the rule of law, and then provides some suggestions for solutions to the above problems. So in just a moment we'll talk with Roger Partridge. After which, of course there is the mail room with Missus Producer, and there are some advisories with regard to things that I think will

interest you which we have recently introduced. But next Roger Partridge. Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestant action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours. Leveris is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Levericks is an

antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time you are in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v Rix Leverix and always read the label, take as directed and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland Layton Smith Roger Partridge was for twenty three years a litigation partner at law firm Bell Gully. He is now the chairman of the New Zealand Initiative and has

written numerous papers on matters of public importance. His most recent was Prescription for Prosperity, a briefing to the incoming government of twenty twenty three. He has now written and released who Makes the Law reigning in the Supreme Court While somebody needed to do it? Roger Partridge, great to talk with you and I congratulate you on what you've done. It's very impressive. What brought you to the point of realizing you needed to do this well.

increasingly erratic decisions from the Supreme Court. It started three years ago with the Make It sixteen case, that's the voting age case, where the Supreme Court weighed in on something that's obviously a political issue and and and in its enthusiasm it made a really very basic error in

interpreting the Bill of Rights Act. The Minority there was a minority judgment of Stephen Kosch which got the law right justice coach, but it was an obvious flaw and it belied a court very keen to intervene on on on political matters and matter is that really should be

left to Parliament and to voters. Earlier this year then another extremely erratic cases I saw at the Climate change case, where the Court of Appeal had said civil proceedings between a plaint of and a defendant couldn't couldn't really hope to address the challenge that is climate change in it that it required a complex regulatory regime and international treaties.

But the Supreme Court was having none of that and granted granted leave for the for the unsuccessful plaintiff to appeal the decision from the Court of Appeal striking out the claim. So we're now going to have the judges inserting themselves into into a show trial on climate change, on an issue which many will think is best left

to Parliament. And then in I think it was early March, it might have been late February, the CAC Jack Hodd sent me a draft of an article he was going to deliver at a conference run by the Legal Research Foundation marking twenty years of the Supreme Court's anniversary. It was written in very polite language, but it was at trenchant criticism of a court that's really straight outside its

bounds and misunderstood its role. I wrote it up in my herald column that Jack's criticisms confirmed some of my own thinking. I wrote a follow up column with some a couple of thoughts on what Parliament might do to reign in the Court and kept thinking about it and that led to the project which is released today.

courts must follow when interpreting Parliament's words. And what we're seeing now is a radical departure from those guidelines by a court that has becoming increasingly unconstrained and increasingly inserting itself into the role of lawmaker, which is traditionally Parliament's role rather than just adjudicator deciding disputes between parties. And when you become a lawmaker, you're making policy decisions, and

that inevitably politicizes the judicial role. And I think we can see from the US the cautionary tale of what happens when a Supreme Court becomes too activist, and the erosion of trust in the impartiality of the judiciary and in a sense, the erosion of the democratic legitimacy of the law if the laws are being made by unaccountable not politically accountable judges rather than accountable politicians.

of legislation, doesn't result in legislation being invalidated. That's the biggest difference. The biggest similarity now is that we've got a Supreme Court that is increasingly keen to get involved in political contentious political issues. The voting age is a good example. Climate change is another good example. The sentence in case the three strikes legislation. Whether you like the three strikes legislation or not, I was never a fan

of it. But it was undoubtedly within Parliament's reavemant to pass it. But it's the court took a hostile approach to three strikes. So we're seeing a court increasingly involved in making policy, in inserting itself into important policy decisions which traditionally the courts would have left to Parliament.

the rule of law means. It's reasonably well understood by lawyers, but most importantly, it means that laws are certain and predictable. And if you've if you've got judges weighing in and taking radical or perhaps even unreasonable views of what legislation means, then the law becomes less certain and predictable. And that

challenge is the rule of law. So the report recommends one of the five recommendations is that we sharpen up judicial appointment processes to focus more on those qualities, the qualities of judicial restraint, respect for the sovereignty of parliament, and the rule of law.

against that. Now we've got a conservative dominated Supreme Court bench and that's also activist, and the Democrats are railing against it. And it's a cautionary tale for us. We don't want a judiciary that's overtly or subject overtly to the charge that it's politically partial, because that undermines trust and the judiciary and the democratic legitimacy of the legal system and the law.

and the doctrines of precedents, President and the other. The other suggestion, though, and this is not as radical as it sounds, is to introduce term limits for Supreme Court judges, so they'd spend they'd come up out of the Court of Appeal and spend five to seven years perhaps in the Supreme Court and then go back to the Court of Appeal or retire, and that way we'd I think we'd counter an Ivory Tower concern that spending too long at the top in the palace that we've built for

the Supreme Court in Wellington gives the risks giving Supreme Court judges hears above their station. Their role is to adjudicate on disputes, not to be not to take over Parliament's role. So I think Supreme Court terms for Supreme Court judges would be a good idea, and a greater focus on judicial restraint in their track record.

it was enacted. And if society of voters the electorate wants changes to us, then that should go through the democratic process and so and we've seen that with the US Constitution with a series of amendments. That's the democratically legitimate way of changing both your founding constitution and any other law that needs updating. Not the courts saying well, Parliament might have meant one thing in nineteen ninety, but in twenty twenty four it would have decided something else

because we think society's values are changed. Therefore we'll interpret it in a different way. That's not the job for the courts. That's a job for our democratically elected parliament. The courts are not equipped to make social policy decisions. They don't have the process of decisions. They don't have the submission making process that occurs in Parliament with select committees. They are dealing with issues in a very constrained way.

The issues come before the courts in a dispute between two parties, so not everybody with an interest is represented, and so they're not equipped to make social policy decisions. And then they're not but obviously obviously they think they are. Well they think they are. And that's the problem that the report primarily addresses. How to reign in a court that thinks that it's got a function that's beyond its remit.

interpreted by the courts to reflect that. The argument is disingenuous. When a court invalidates a statute, it invalidates the best evidence available of what society's morality, and the evolving morality rationale, which the Supreme Court has used a number of times, is actually no more than a statement that the court believes the morality it prefers should be enforced. The society is not involving only the court is will. That summarizes here, well, that's that is a central issue.

the courts on how they interpret legislation. It provides that legislation is to be the meaning is to be determined from the text of the legislation and in light of its purpose and context. So that's the purpose that Parliament had when it passed the legislation. Those last three words and the context and its context I think could be

sharpened up. It does not make clear that the context, the relevant context is the context when the law was passed, and there are some suggestions that the court can look

to later context, so changing values. I'm suggesting that Parliament sharpen up that wording to introduce some guardrails to make it clear that we're talking about the context when the law was enacted, and so that's designed to stop the mischief you've described in that quote of the courts updating the meaning of legislation without it going through Parliament simply by interpreting it differently based on their perceptions of changing society's values.

career for a man of such a young age. I don't want to put a name a figure on it, but he must be in his early forties at most. He's a King's Council in the UK and a full professor at Oxford of Law and Constitutional government. So he's a bright star in constitutional law.

But the Chief Justice in the three Strikes case, Fitzgerald in twenty twenty one, was quite splicit and casting off those shackles and saying the word reasonable didn't exist when they were looking at laws that conflicted with rights protected by the Bill of Rights, and that they could that they weren't constrained by a reasonable interpretation. It follows from that that they were willing to adopt an unreasonable interpretation

which could never have been Parliament's intent. So they became they've become increasingly unconstrained in relation to the interpretation of legislation.

rules Parliament sets for the courts when interpreting legislation. Of course, Parliament is supreme and so it can overturn and if necessary, pass legislation clarifying its intent, but it shouldn't have to

do that. Sometimes Parliament can be careless with the words it used, and sometimes they do need to be fine tuned, but they shouldn't be facing a court that is insisting on a meaning that is different from what Parliament clearly intended, and that's what we saw in the Fitzgerald Fitzgerald case. So I've dwelt a little bit on the legislation side of things. Shall we come to the common law side now? Yes?

And perhaps the best place to start as a description for your listeners of what the common law is, because

it is judge made law. Our law is very largely made up of statutes passed by Parliament, but there's a body of common law that we inherited from England in eighteen fifty two when the English Laws Act was passed, and these are the sets of laws, many of which have been codified subsequently in statute, but these are the laws that were created by the courts over many centuries, for example, determining what sorts of promises are enforceable in

the courts as contracts. The taughts or civil wrongs like negligence and slander and trespass all are originally part of

the common law, equitable notions of trust. So there's a whole body of law that is judge made, that's the common law, and from that body of law you can draw principles and the courts on a conventional or traditional orthodox approach to common law method will fill the gaps in it to deal with new circumstances, drawing on those principles, or make corrections when it's clear that courts in the past have earred and they've taken an approach in one

part of the common law that's clearly inconsistent with the body of the common law, and so they'll iron out any wrinkles. So that's the traditional common law method. What our Supreme Court has said repeatedly in cases and in it's the judge's extrajudicial writings and lectures and speeches, is that their approach involves reshaping established legal principles to match

judge's views of today's social values. So rather than taking the common law and filling gaps in it or ironing out wrinkles, they are willing to change its fundamental values and take it on a journey by developing it having regard to their views of social values. Now that's an unquestionably radical approach, and it's inconsistent with the rule of law because it throws the law into a state of chaos. We've seen that with the Elis decision and the quagma.

They've left that they've left us in relation to the role of Teacungor and the law. So your question, if I track back, was that they're taking the same approach in relation to the common Law as in relation to this statutes, a disruptive and radical approach. So it's the same in that sense, and it's the same in the sense that it undermines the rule of law because it

creates uncertainty and unpredictability. It also undermines the sovereignty of Parliament, quite directly in the case when the Court ignores Parliament's intended meaning, but also in relation to the common Law, where it's making big social policy decisions which are properly the role for our elected representatives.

consistently applied and so forth. Yes, so the formal aspects of laws, not their substantive content stand of contents up to Parliament. It's become increasingly fashionable over the last so since the middle of the twentieth century to argue for a thicker or a more substantive version of the rule of law. So the rule of law then connotes ideas

of social justice and economic entitlements or rights. And at least one member of the Supreme Court adheres to what's called the thick version of the rule of law compared with a thin formal version of the rule of law. And it's unhelpful that the term the rule of law

is undefined in what's now the Senior Courts Act. And so against the risk that the courts embark on a journey of developing the common law in the name of a thick version of the rule of law that requires social justice and addressing disadvantage and so forth, all matters which most of us will think were properly for our parliament.

The report recommends that Parliament legislate the meaning of the rule of law and specify that it just means the thin components, the formal aspects of the law, so that the courts can't go on this reforming crusade in the name of the rule of law. So that's one thing. Greater attention to greater attention to who's appointed as superior court judges and the Court of Appeal in the Supreme

Court is another. And then a third is for Parliament to exercise its legislative power when it thinks that the courts have taken the common law off in the wrong direction. Parliament shouldn't hesitate to pass law to put it back on track. That is Parliament's prerogative, and it shouldn't hesitate to use.

put things straight. But Parliament shouldn't hesitate to use its power as the supreme law maker to ensure that the law stays on track.

currently over freedom of speech and academic freedom. And I'm sure that has an influence on the product from law schools in the sense of the the legal methods law students are being imbued with being quite different than perhaps it was even twenty years ago. So I think that's I think that's that an issue. It just means those with differing views need to have the courage to debate.

And that's that's perhaps another issue, and an even broader issue affecting our country, and that is a combination of the tall poppy syndrome and the small size of the country often leads to people not standing up and challenging, and we need to see much more of that.

debate is healthy and we must have contrarians. I know you've interviewed one legal contrarian, Jim Allen. I enjoyed that discussion.

So the question I have is do you think that our Prime minister has the capacity to approach these social issues in the country in the with the appropriate attitude to you and I are discussing, Yes.

A health system needs much more of a shakeup than it's going to be given this, but you can understand the reluctance to shake up an organization that's reeling already. Those range of reforms in housing, education, and improvements to the health system are all critical to the good life in New Zealand. And I think there's an ambitious reform agenda that the government set itself. A lot of it builds on research and recommendations made by the Initiative over

the last decade. And I can see why in Australia they look favorably towards the New Zealand the current coalition government because of the ambition of its reform agenda. Australia is the lucky country. It's much more prosperous than New Zealand, but it's track record of political reform over the last twenty years is dire. So yes are qualified, Yes, Okay.

are promising signs where the government's reform agenda. So I think Australia's got its challenges, but I think we are further down the precipice cloring our way up.

Is there anything that is It's almost entirely been the work of the New Zealand Initiative over the last decade.

the initiatives. So it's it's New Zealand lacks diversity of thought and an organization like the One Eyed Chair is is able to challenge the status quo. We're lucky to have the independence to be able to speak out and then to come up with ideas that may not be coming out of either our universities or out of our bureaucracy in Wellington.

shared exclusive and didn't need to be continuous. Well, it's no surprise that Parliament's now saying, well, we're going to make clear that the courts enforce the law as we intended it but that's something that Labor did as well in twenty sixteen in a case called d in the Police, when the courts clearly didn't follow what was in Labor intended with the Sex Offenders Registration Act, they jumped in immediately and passed legislation under urgency to overrule what the

court had found. I think on both sides of the of the political divide, governments have struggled with the Supreme Court. They should intervene, and they should intervene more frequently than they do to to correct the course of the law. So that's the first thing. Legislative intervention. It's been used really in the past, but courts in the past haven't been so consciously radicals as the Supreme Courts being now, and it can expect to be corrected more frequently. So

that's the first thing. The second thing is defining the rule of law so that it's not seen by the courts as a license to go off on a social justice crusade. The third thing are tightening up the legisla that the instructions from Parliament of the approach the courts that are take in relation to interpreting its Parliament's words. So making clear that we don't have this living constitution idea that the courts can update the meaning of legislation

based on their sense of changing social values. And also tweaking Section six of the Bill of Rights Act, which is particularly problematic now. Section we haven't talked about the Bill of Rights Act, but Section six provides that wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained and the Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other.

Until the Fitzgerald case, the Supreme Court had said it had to be a reasonable interpretation the Supreme Court and Fitzgerald said, well, we don't see the word reasonable in there. The corollery of that is that they're willing to adopt an unreasonable interpretation. That's certainly not what Parliament meant in Parliament should make that clear, either by removing Section six or tweaking it, and then finally tightening up judicial appointment processes.

of that. But the risk of the risk of Bills of Rights and constitutions is that they're a license to the courts to enter the political fray, and that's what we've seen all around the world, with the US Supreme Court ending with a Canadian Supreme Court as well.

The judges in the majority effectively rewrote the three strikes maximum sentence provision in the Sentencing Act of two thousand and two. The Fitzgerald decision, you write, may be remembered as the high watermark of judicial activism. It suggests that not even clear wording is enough to override what the Court regards as basic rights. Instead, it seems the Court will insist on clear evidence that Parliament has deliberately confronted the possibility of these base rights being set aside before

it will follow Parliament's words. And I've written under that my notation is unbelievable.

Remember he was handpicked and directed by a Deern. He spent time with the heavily politicized British Police, learning their ways, then returning to New Zealand to take up the role of Commissioner. I was very surprised the new government retained him. I think it was a big mistake by the police minister who criticized Caster when in opposition. Grant I agree with you pretty much in all one, two, three, four

lines That was following a comment I made. I don't know how he held his job under the under the new regime, but thank you for the feedback, missus producer las Let's go. How are you better than I look?

Harris government disaster response. It reminds me of one of Oscar Wilde's quips, which, when asked about the newspapers in America, declared that they were full of rubbish, that if people read them and are satisfied with them, then this must be a nation of lunatics. Personally, I would say the same from a New Zealand perspective. We all know that liberals in America are no longer liberal. They've been replaced

by the left, the hard left at that. So it seemed to me that America is on a knife edge. If Trump wins, there could well be a civil war because the left will go ballistic. If Harris and the deep State, when I believe we will, will almost certainly see a catastrophic war in Europe, if not the entire world, because the aforementioned Deep State, all sorts of historical reasons, is determined to deal to Russia once and for all. Fingers crossed for us all we must all keep going.

You too too, from Steve, Thank you, Steve.

the COVID shots. Has it occurred to him that some parents have known there is more going on with the vaccines than parents have been led to believe by information put out by the Ministry of Health. Perhaps he should do a bit more investigation himself into the history of vaccines and follow the money. I suggest you might consider interviewing a Roman Bizarinsky. No, that's not right, author of the book Dissolving Illusions with Suzanne Humphrey's MD. It covers

the history of vaccines, including polio. If you have suffered polio or are a child of someone who has, and you are told that this is the vaccine that prevents it, of course you would say that everyone should be getting the vaccine, but what if this is not true? Thanks for continuing your show. I look forward to it always, Grace. I look forward to your company also.

to release his medical records for all to see. This is the woman who blatantly ignored the state of health of the current president and downright lied about his mental state or that he was actually even breathing. Add to the fact that the MSM even runs this story as if everything is normal. I'm nervously waiting for the next few weeks to be over and the US election to have concluded. Really enjoyed your last podcast with Patrick Basham. I hope we hear from him again soon. You will

on election date and keep up the great work. Latin and Carolyn.

To me, an expert as a surgeon who can go into an o R and put an accident patient back together, a rescue lead hand who can rescue a stranded climber, and a builder you can send to a stalled work site to quick quickly solve a problem. Doctorates are a good memory for secondhand information and a cozy relationship with the granting professors. He says, I don't know about the New Zealand medical system. Hope it's not the same as here and so rod as the guy who lives in Kennedy.

get in line because they only take fourteen patients. They start interviewing patients at eight thirty. This is the seniors gift for paying taxes over a lifetime and it's pretty ghastly here these days because we have a we have a system paucity of doctors.

as much as I did. Ashley Rinsberg's big picture view of the Arab Israeli conflict, dubbed dovetails very nicely into what the analyst team at Geopolitical Futures has been documenting since the start of the current phase of the Arab Israeli conflict. On that awful day, he was outstanding in his praise and endorsement of Benjamin Netanyahoo and was wonderfully correct in emphasizing President Trump's bold and enormously consequential push

for the Abraham Accords. I have attached a piece that I believe is profoundly important to all who value freedom was posted on browns Stone Institute, a site that just keeps getting better and better, and I'll add my better on the end of that. Thank you, Paul. I might dig that out and include it.

Pfizer and Maderna's products. This highly anticipated session was called in response to mounting evidence of DNA contamination presented by experts such as Dr David's Speecher, alongside a series of letters from M P Russell Broadbend. The gravity of the concerns raised, along with the Council's proactive stance, has drawn attention not only within Western Australia but across the entire nation. Now that is only the introductory paragraph, and i'll tell you.

I'll tell you after the mail room when I'm giving you some other information where you can find it. This is producer. I have a very long letter. You might recall it. Last week. I put one aside, make mention of it the author that that I would read it thoroughly and then decide very long. So I'm going to utilize it. But after you've gone, love, because I know that you have another appointment this week in half an hour and that's not even here.

I have. Now that I've inspected it, shall we say thoroughly great writes that when the madness erupted, my wife and I I just completed a six weeks South Island road trip, pretty much covering the whole island, enjoying brilliant weather at a fantastic time of enjoying the beautiful scenery which that island affords. We were in Picton for the last couple of days before catching the ferry and driving

up the North Island heading home. Because of the number of others doing the same, we struggled to get a booking. Remember those days when everyone was racing to get back to wherever they lived before lockdown. We struggled to get a booking and meet the lockdown requirement and ended up driving up the North Island on the extra day afforded travelers heading to your home quite an amazing feeling with very very few vehicles on the road. The early days

were somewhat surreal developing a new regime of living. Being Boomers the target of the virus, we were fortunate in having the support of immediate family for shopping, etc. Early on, we as a family were interested in being safe and following the rules and generally doing what was expected of us. As time went on, we were starting to query the information and data that was being spouted daily from the

podium of truths. We decided to adopt a weight in sea regime around the vaccine development, particularly when there was a pharmaceutical company planning on producing a conventional vaccine and different to the mRNA JAB which was close to release. Also, was the info becoming available and suggesting the likely vulnerable group were older people with health issues. While Carol and I were both in our seventies, we fortunately were in

very good health. One family member was Slash Is, a journalist who has an investigated event started spending time looking into the matter, and as time went on he started looking into alternative thinking on the subject and eventually this led to considering other treatment options as an alternative to

the proposed JAB introduction. Through the process, Mark which obviously is not his real name, was introduced to people like Robert Clancy, doctor Robert Malown, Peter McCulloch, Gert van Vandenbosch, Brett Weinstein, David Bell, Pierre Corey and others, which led him to develop a very open mind on the whole subject. He became very skeptical about the MR and A technology. Fortunately for our Hamley, early on in his investigation he started to focus on finding treatments to help provide immunity

to the disease. The natural immune system featured high on the radar and providing support to this system seemed to be a no brainer. Remarkably, very early on he came across ivermecton. This, along with zinc and vitamins D and C, were seen as an alternative to the emerging JAB which was being developed and close to being introduced. Sourcing was a challenge and locally was virtually impossible. However, in the early days it wasn't too bad to purchase from offshore.

As time went on, the source was starting to become difficult and eventually impossis. Our last shipment was in alternative packaging. However, unfortunately the shipment was picked up in customs and we never saw it other which they stole it. The good news is this shipment was for a rainy day and we have managed to have enough to still today have good supplies This was during the actual introduction of the JAB. Like everyone, our daily lives were impacted by the continued

input of government politicians, bureaucrats and health experts. The government's failure to use the numerous qualified professionals with expertise in their fields was pathetic and spoke slash speaks to the arrogance of those who chose to ignore that advice. I could expand here, but suffice it to say the management of the whole COVID issue by the Labor government, bureaucrats and other government officials was pure and simply corrupt and criminal.

A particular frustration was the fact that the New Zealand government were absolutely aware that the JAB did not prevent transmission prior to the repeat. Prior his emphasis to the New Zealand rollout, another government letdown. As things settled down and the ability to move around became somewhat easier if you were jabbed, we of course, were left stuck indoors and isolated from the masses. We were prepared to accept

the restrictions, believing in our decision. The sideways glances from extended family and friends not all were obvious, but we as a family three generations but only six of us stuck together and became a closer unit and aside I decided to try and circumvent the system and managed with some help, to replicate a COVID pass. The result was two passes, one to view true details and one to scan a copy. Managing to visit many places restaurants, cafes

and bars, etc. Just proved another flaw in the government's plan. Today, three to four years on, none of the family have had COVID. The daily dose of vitamin C and D, along with zinc supporting the immune system, has seemed to do the trick. We are still convinced of the decision we made back then and would certainly follow the same or a similar regime in the future. I enjoy your weekly podcasts and have developed a habit of listening every

Saturday morning. Probably listened to around ninety five percent of the podcast. Your balanced approach to the subjects is refreshing given the woky, lefty narratives we are now constantly subjected to. Kind regards, Craig, I can't find anything wrong with what you've said. Some people would probably say that you were wrong in your replication of a COVID pass because at the time, Well, you knew, and a lot of people knew,

but not everybody did. Apart from that little adventure, You're to be congratulated on your whole attitude and there were many many people who fell into a footstep with you. And let's hope we don't have to go through anything like that again in the foreseeable future or beyond.

I will never know. That is the better one, the main one. Put that aside for a moment. We tad about Hillary Clinton and her warning. Very quickly. This is from This is from zero Hedge. If you want to find it as Empire of Lies crumbles, Hillary Clinton warns, is all you need as empire. Do a search on it and you'll find it. I'm sure as empire of lies crumbles, Hillary Clinton warns will lose total control if

social media stops censoring content. This is a woman that's been telling us for ages about how Donald Trump is going to ruin America. Donald Trump is going to be a totalitarian tyrant. I think he can be a totalitarian tyrant amongst other things, etc. I have not a word that I can use that describes Hillary Clinton, to be honest. About nine months ago, the Wall Street Journal editor in chief admitted to Davos Elites that the legacy media outlets

no longer had a monopoly on information and narratives. In other words, misinformation and disinformation campaigns to brainwash the masses were no longer working. We owned the news, We were the gatekeepers, and we very much owned the facts as well. Nowadays, people can go to all sorts of different sources for the news, and they're much more questioning about what we're saying. This is according to the Wall Street Journal editor Emma Tucker, this is why the fake news media is attacking Elon

and the X platform. They have lost control of the narrative they once had we owned the news. We were the gatekeepers and we were very much and we very much owned the facts as well. So there's six pages on that. If you're interisted next misinformation laws will feed attacks on Western history. Now this is from the Spectator Australia and it's not something that you can hunt down and read in its entirety unless you are a subscriber

of which I am. So this is a little unfair, but it's to do with Tucker Carlson has a unique ability to blow up the Internet, and he did so again recently. When History podcast host Daryl Cooper appeared on his show, Cooper made some controversial comments, primarily about Winston Churchill on the Second World War. Throughout the episode, Cooper asserted that Churchill was the chief villain of the Second World War. He accused Churchill of wanting war with Germany

when hit the only wanted piece with Britain. He suggested Churchill may have been influenced by his Zionist finances to wage war on Germany and that it was Churchill who was the first to start fire bombing cities. The culpability of the Germans, in contrast, was downplayed, with Cooper suggesting that the deaths of millions of Russian POWs on the Eastern Front resulted more from a lack of planning and logistics than a concerted effort to mass murder. There are

some insane people in this world. You can't eliminate them. I don't know. I don't know what Carlson was doing with him on Maybe he was having fun at his expense. But for get a chance or have a look. Now. This is the no, it's not, yes, it is. This is the article that is the most important this week. I think it runs fourteen pages. Central Bank Digital Currencies Accelerating toward Dystopia, and you can find that simply by doing a search on Central bank Digital Currencies Accelerating toward

Dystopia by Ronan Manly. In fact, you'd probably be better off looking up Ronan Manly, Rona m an l Y Ronan Manly fourteen pages of interest. When it comes to banking and the future, the dangers of CBDCs. All major banks are planning a CBDC. I've read most of this CBDC bridges for those who believe that their own countries CBDC could be a dangerous tool of surveillance and control.

They must also stay aware of the fact that the global plans for these financial globalists are to link all of these national CBDCs together in a global network of tightly knit mesh that will envelop the human population trilling unelected elites, the vis unelected elites, the Atlantic Council, unelected elites, the International Monetary Fund, and US Republicans push back against cbdc's push harder. And then there is the conclusion, a

touch of the conclusion. Whatever the outcome, it looks set that this CBDC issue will cause lots more debate and wrangling between Republicans and Democrats over the months and years to come, and could even be a major policy issue to debate if the mainstream media, the US mainstream media, bothered to ask the right questions. I think it's worthy of anybody who listens to this podcast should find it

of some value. And then finally, I want to make mention of these two books that I have that I have discussed with one of the one of the authors, Andrew Hollis, Climate Actually Nothing to Fear. And then the second volume, which has now come out finally in its own right, Climate Actually the science behind it. So the difference Climate Actually nothing to fear is Volume one Climate

actually the science behind it. Volume two speaks for itself, ordinary language explaining the science is associated with climate for everyone to understand by retired lawyer and the man who in his law degree did some climate stuff or associated Andrew Hollis and Mike sank And we've done an interview, as I say, and you've probably heard it. But now that I've got the books in their final form, let me just give you an idea of what caught my attention.

These arrived last Saturday. The alleged harm from CO two. CO two is a pollutant question mark, Did you know that the Supreme Court of the United States legislated that CO two was a pollutant and needs to be eradicated. What part of the planet are you from? How delusional are you? It is not a plant destroying toxin. It is the food upon which they survive and thrive. Such is the madness of this climate alarmist hysteria that even the highest court in the United States has seemingly gone bonkers.

There were the Democrat appointees that caused that. And you can get these two books from Amazon Australia and they're well priced, I might add, and they're worthy of being in your library, especially if you've got young people in your house, especially if you've got kids at school. Let them educate themselves and take on the teachers, because the

teachers deserve to be taken on. And that will take us away for podcasts or from podcast two hundred and sixty later in that News Talks AB dot co dot NZ and Carolyn at Newstalks ADB dot co dot in Z. We shall return with podcasts two hundred and sixty one very shortly. Until then, as always, thank you for listening and we shall talk soon.