You played it so well Davflaws. I don't really know your posting history so had to read twice to see if it was just another nasty post in line with some on here or it was a wind up. And I thought, surely no one is that callous. 🤔
Post of the day.
Printable View
You played it so well Davflaws. I don't really know your posting history so had to read twice to see if it was just another nasty post in line with some on here or it was a wind up. And I thought, surely no one is that callous. 🤔
Post of the day.
I'm not trying to score points at all. You are a sociopath, and people can just read what you wrote, starts from here:
https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showth...25#post1022404
And you did it again; more disrespect, more belittling; answer this:
Why are you putting experience in quotes: "experience" ?
Why did you bother asking if you were never going to believe me and like many of your positions were preordained.
If I was implying what you say, I would have used single inverted commas.
Do you ever get tired of just making stuff up?
This is about as tedious as our many other stoushes and toying with food has a limited amount of entertainment value.
I was hoping you would not lie and instead you would own up to what I consider to be some of the most disgusting behaviour I've seen on this site and maybe this would help you grow in some manner. But, no.
I wrote:
In reply, you wrote:
You are obviously taking the piss out of my experience. Those are obvious air quotes.
Did anyone watch this "interview" David gave with family first?
https://youtu.be/gZP2oQF7s6c?si=LUVG5Lngqn1IW6vN
You can clearly see he has respect for a lot of his opponents based on how little he has for the people he's speaking to here. I love seeing the comments about switching their vote to NZ First based on the video. You can see exactly the kind of company you're keeping if you're a Winston Peters fan.
Like chris Luxon and national thing he will be good for the country but David Seymour and act would be bad for the country
David Seymour for prime minister!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tB_Uh8jVgc
Talking too much sense - the cookers seem to be deserting him.
This week's election poll is here:
https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showth...l-the-election
This press release by ACT claims zero evidence For TPM’s Race-baiting claims.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA23...ing-claims.htm
“Te Pāti Māori and their allies have accused ACT of ‘race-baiting’ over and over again, but can never provide an example.
This Newshub article provides two examples of racebaiting.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/09/election-2023-act-s-david-seymour-denies-using-beneficiaries-m-ori-as-political-punching-bag.html
Seymour also suggested people are being forced to use te reo Māori. "The way to turn a treasure into a form of torture is to impose it on people by force, perhaps with the very best of intentions."
He released a policy document titled 'A path from co-government to democracy' - a follow-up to a welfare policy announced this week taking aim at beneficiaries.
Calling it co-government is racebaiting. It is co-governance that has been discussed.
You don't get to define 'race baiting'.
Race baiting and promoting actual hatred between races is what John Tamihere has done down in Huntly, but deliberately playing up and miscategorising a series of unrelated incidents into a vendetta against a TPM candidate being carried out by 'racist white people'.
A political sign disappearing - for all I know it blew away in the wind - was called 'a ram raid'. Do you condone the appalling lies of John Tamihere and TPM?
An elderly man going to wish a TPM candidate well was miscategorised as some sort of politically motivated intimidation by a racist, and the man was tracked down and served with a trespass notice. Do you condone the appalling lies of John Tamihere and TPM?
Datyr, red panda, red skies as well.....you all have an opportunity to call out what happened in Huntly for what it was: a series of stunts by TPM designed to stoke race hate and division to earn them support & votes.
Hell yeah brother!
https://media.giphy.com/media/I3EsiE...-downsized.gif
Seymour is a dangerous man I hope Luxon doesn't give him a important portfolio
Chris Luxon good he has business experience
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/499388/what-is-race-baiting-and-who-decides
“By a strict dictionary definition, "race-baiting" is the act of intentionally encouraging racism or anger about issues related to race in order to win votes.
In 2004, National's then-leader Don Brash embarked upon what many critics considered a campaign of race-baiting. Brash accused the Labour Government of the time of "race-based" policies that unfairly advantaged Māori and advocated "one law for all". It was certainly a potent vote winner - National surged from the high-20s to the mid-40s on political polls within weeks. But was it "intentionally encouraging racism"? “
New Zealand is slowly learning (way too slowly in my opinion) that enshrining race in legislation, no matter how well intentioned, is a recipe for resentment. It has never ended well historically, wherever it has been tried. People are deluding themselves if they think it's a solution to any problem.
Don Brash was ahead of his time.
Election 2023: Māori leaders call on politicians to condemn racism
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/499013/election-2023-maori-leaders-call-on-politicians-to-condemn-racism
In an open letter, Māori and community leaders are calling for an end to a "divisive style of politics".
"Racism, in any form, should have no place in our elections," the letter starts.
"Leaders, whether it is within your iwi, your whānau or of a political party, have a responsibility to call out racism and race-baiting and publicly condemn it.
"Race-baiting for votes is not new here in Aotearoa. But this election, the dog whistling and the outright public displays of racism from political candidates have increased to unacceptable levels.
"We need to draw a line in the sand, put an end to this divisive style of politics because Aotearoa, we are better than that."
The letter acknowledged Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins calling for the end to race-baiting in election campaigns.
It also acknowledged the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori for "their anti-racism positions and respect the words of Kiingi Tuheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero IIV, who, at his Koroneihana called for political parties to stop using Māori people as a political football".
"It is racist to call for Māori, elite or not, to be cut out and buried."
It said it was "ignorant" to call the signing of Te Tiriti "a wee experiment".
"And it is ignorant to think you have a right to erase Te Tiriti from legislation and rewrite it in your own words."
The letter said Māori deserved better from those who wanted to lead the country.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/election-2023-race-relations-commissioner-on-allegations-of-race-baiting-in-election/MRJW43MHWVDK7LKTBDPJK3ECLE/
"Acting Race Relations commissioner Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo is calling for respect and dignity to be maintained when political tensions are high, saying she is concerned there have been racist and classist undertones.
She told Checkpoint that rhetoric of an unpleasant nature had been escalating and some of it was racist. It was also concerning that there seemed to be more verbal attacks on women candidates.
All political parties have said that candidates are experiencing abuse and threats while campaigning, however they have also accused each other of stirring up ill-feeling.The reports have increased over the past six months and “it’s feeling dangerous”, she said.
She appealed to candidates to take a deep breath and not make comments that caused tension, especially for the sake of young people.
“They want to hear aspiration, they want to hear harmony, they want to hear hope, not comments that can cause disharmony and people to feel unsafe in our communities.
“I think it’s a reflection of the fragility that’s in our communities right now ... we just have to be careful what we are saying to each other because our young people, everyone is looking for leadership, they’re looking for stability.”
She pleaded with those both in politics and business to remember that this country was a home for everyone and people should be doing their best to maintain harmony and respect for others.
She referred to the controversy around the Ministry of Pacific Peoples earlier this year. Soon after reports of spending on breakfasts and gifts for its departing chief executive emerged, Act leader David Seymour said he would like to blow up the ministry.
She said such incidents “provided oxygen” for other people and that led to staff feeling unsafe in their workplaces.
Such comments were not conducive to “racial harmony or public safety”."
Here's RACE BAITING of the highest order - by John Tamihere of The Maori Party.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...-her-well.html
It’s fair for Te Pāti Māori to raise concerns generally about what they see as heightened levels of racism in New Zealand right now, but delivering a verdict prematurely for the purposes of political finger pointing is repugnant & disgraceful.
And this is the person who Tamihere called a home invader :
https://scontent.fakl1-4.fna.fbcdn.n...bA&oe=65470BB9
Seriously?
Final election poll is here:
https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showth...-the-election!
I don't really want to get drawn into this pity debate about race-baiting, but not quite sure which point you want to make with your foto.
I understand NZ Police is processing a person for home invasion into the house of a young woman who happens to be a Te Pati candidate. I have no clue whether this was the person on the foto, but if it was, what exactly is your point?
Are you saying NZ Police has got the wrong guy?
or are you saying NZ Police has got the right guy, but it is not this person and its Te Patis fault?
And whats the point of the foto anyway? Do you believe one can judge from a foto whether a person is a home invader or not? Crooks come in all colours, shapes, genders and forms - and even Donald Trump could be just a nice granddad, if a photo of him is the only thing you've got.
Confusing :confused: ;
Is the inference the gent in the photo is on the wrong side of the tracks?
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2210/S00004/on-why-new-zealand-isnt-heavily-taxed.htm
We also happen to be living in an era of right wing populism. Having an integrated persona and a coherent policy platform is not seen as much of a political priority. So long as the candidate can regularly land somewhere along the spectrum of existing grievances confirmed by focus group research, the inconsistency between those landing points won’t be much of a disqualifying factor.
The problem for the rest of us with the micro-targeting of grievances by National and ACT, is that this strategy to get elected does not include sustainable alternatives.
That’s the problem with populism. It is all about pandering to grievances, not solutions. It fosters division, not unity.
Tax rates only tell half of the story. For eg in Australia and Canada both have a personal exemption limit before income taxes kick in, so you really just can't use the lowest or highest marginal tax figure. You really need to question why so many of the skilled have (and continue) to leave NZ for Australia? I left Canada for NZ because at the time, the political environment in Canada was toxic (much like what we are seeing now in NZ) ; in addition NZ having more habitable climate so I can enjoy my cars year round (vs Canada's extreme cold winters which would make using classic and sports cars maybe 4 months of the year).
True - Labours policies have been as populist and useless as NZF's / ACT's and Nationals policies are now. Question is just - what do we gain by replacing one useless populist with another useless populist? Maybe we should throw the whole lot out of parliament :) ;
No doubt - Labours policies have been ill communicated and divisive (and yes, before you mention it - they don't work either).
I doubt however that ACT's and Winstons rethoric will do anything to foster a healing process - they are just alienating the other side of the chasm and making it larger.
Extremes (no matter on which side) never ever improve anything, they just breed extremes on the other side of the divide as well.
Ray Dalio on populism
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/populism-phenomenon-ray-dalio
Populism is not well understood because, over the past several decades, it has been infrequent in emerging countries (e.g., Chávez’s Venezuela, Duterte’s Philippines, etc.) and virtually nonexistent in developed countries. It is one of those phenomena that comes along in a big way about once a lifetime—like pandemics, depressions, or wars. The last time that it existed as a major force in the world was in the 1930s, when most countries became populist. Over the last year (2017), it has again emerged as a major force. We sought to identify parties/candidates who made attacking the political/corporate establishment their key political cause. Populism has surged in recent years and is currently at its highest level since the late 1930s (though the ideology of the populists today is much less extreme compared to the 1930s).
Given the extent of it now, over the next year populism will certainly play a greater role in shaping economic policies. In fact, we believe that populism’s role in shaping economic conditions will probably be more powerful than classic monetary and fiscal policies (as well as a big influence on fiscal policies).
Populism is a political and social phenomenon that arises from the common man being fed up with 1) wealth and opportunity gaps, 2) perceived cultural threats from those with different values in the country and from outsiders, 3) the “establishment elites” in positions of power, and 4) government not working effectively for them. These sentiments lead that constituency to put strong leaders in power. Populist leaders are typically confrontational rather than collaborative and exclusive rather than inclusive. As a result, conflicts typically occur between opposing factions (usually the economic and socially left versus the right), both within the country and between countries. These conflicts typically become progressively more forceful in self- reinforcing ways.
Good on the two young girls protesting at act press conference in chch today. With signs david Seymour is a f***ing idiot.
Maybe one remark after somewhat beating up ACT in the post above:
Having been yesterday in the Press Leaders Debate and I must admit that David Seymour came across as one of the more moderate of the invited leaders (i.e. Winston Peters, Marama Davidson and some guy from Te Pati (forgot his name).
Both Marama (who brought her own very well trained claqueure group into the debate) as well as the Te Pati rep gave us the feeling that as cis white people we still might be tolerated here, but it didn't feel that they welcome the majority of the land to contribute to the politics of the land ... unless of course when they agree with their view.
I found that very sad - the arrogance of both Green and the Te Pati reps will clearly drive more division and increase angst into moderate (and more so right) voter groups .... and while Te pati never featured on my shortlist - The Greens lost a lot of my respect.
Anyway ... just wanted to moderate my post above. Always learning :) ;
Not sure I would concur with that. The UK does not have MMP and ended up with a disastrous liar and crook like BJ as leader, destroying a previously good working economy. UK will need generations to recover from that.
The US does not have MMP and allowed an extremist, wannabe tyran and crook like Donald Trump to destroy the democratic fabric of the country. We don't know yet whether the US democracy will ever recover from Trump undermining it and destroying the safe guards to protect it.
Don't get me wrong - every country has its fair share of crooks and liars (as well in politics), but FPP makes it much easier for these crooks to get absolute power.
MMP is often painful and slow, but at least it forces parties to compromise. It makes it not impossible for politicians to enforce politics against the will of the majority (just look at the current lot), but it makes it harder.
I like MMP. It is a bad from of democracy, but it is better than any other form of government I have seen so far operating (to borrow a saying from Winston Churchill).
Is he?
Do you have any evidence for your statement or is this just one of your usual smear campaigns?
Apart from that - I never realised that politicians are voted in for their academic degrees? Are they? In terms of implementing policies to improve our future would I see him as one of the more successful ministers in the recent government, which admittedly is not a high standard, but still ...
Ian Wishart on James Shaw's degrees :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvafaJGMYW8
Goes into the heart of integrity - not whether he has or not have a degree. If he can't be honest about his qualifications - how on earth can he be at all believed regarding his outlandish climate emergency nonsense ?
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...g?format=1500w
OK - so innocent until proven guilty is only applied when it suits, is it?
But apart from that - I don't see how James Shaws degree (or the lack of it) has anything to do with our understanding of climate change. To the best of my knowledge did James Shaw no research into climate science, he is just using (as anybody else) the results of academical research.
Did you actually follow what Ian Wishart discovered and how James Shaw quickly changed his Linkedin credentials when he was asked about his 'qualifications' (he did not have a BA as he stated in his Linkedin page initially) & how he is totally uncooperative when it comes to how he got his MSC from Bath University?
Read this and decide whether James Shaw is a trustworthy individual of integrity :
https://peterallanwilliams.substack....es-shaw-not-ba
The thing about politicians is that you have to be able to trust them, and to gain trust it helps if they tell the truth about their life and times and background before they went into politics.
For some bizarre reason James Shaw, Minister for Climate Change and co-leader of the Green Party, is telling the world through social media network LinkedIn that he has a BA from Victoria University.
But he has previously told the Otago University student magazine Critic that he didn’t finish his degree before he went off to England in the late 1990s. So he is putting about that he has an undergraduate degree which he has admitted is not the truth.
To quote from Critic, “I never actually got my undergrad.”
It is technically a crime to claim that you have an academic qualification that you don’t have. Others have lost jobs or positions for making such claims.
A staffer at James Shaw’s office has now confirmed that James Shaw does not have a BA from Victoria University. So why is it still on his Linked In page? That is demonstrably false information. If we can’t trust him with his academic qualifications, what else can we not trust him on?
The answer to that, of course, is plenty.
He also says on LinkedIn that he co-founded an outfit in the UK called Future Considerations and that he was a shareholder in it. The only problem is that on his CV he says he started working for Future Considerations in 2005. The company was founded in 2002.
Shaw said in his maiden speech Parliament in 2014 that he worked at Future Considerations, “an organisational development company I helped to establish.”
So the question is – did he mislead Parliament from as early as his maiden speech?
The thing about these issues is that Ian Wishart of Investigate magazine has been writing about them on Twitter for over a week. Nobody in the mainstream media has bothered to follow up the story, no questions have been asked, and there’s been no response from Shaw or the Greens to the thread on Twitter.
If this was David Seymour or Chris Luxon – or Ben Uffindell - with some palpably false information on their LinkedIn CV do you think the media would let that sleep?
Who says our media don’t love and protect the left?
OK - clearly unpleasant accusations which may or may not be true or trumped up.
Funny, they came up so short before the election - did somebody collect smears and just released them at a time when it is hard to debunk them in time?
But whatever it is - it doesn't matter to me (given that I didn't vote for Green this turn anyway), and as I see it, you won't vote for them either.
So - maybe create a Green thread with a decent thread title - and put it there.
This is the ACT thread, isn't it?
To return to Act leader's style.......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThE...JhdGl2ZQ%3D%3D
No wonder he and Winston are often at war. Seymour operates on logic - Peters operates on bluster and b/s.
Logic is apparently being in opposition (effectively) for decades then relying on affirmative action in Epsom.
Front page of the herald today Charities providing school lunches concerned that David is being put in charge as he has stated he is against them.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...ID72DJNYGJ3ZE/
I agree with him that the parents not feeding their kids are sh*tbags but is it the kids fault?
Seymour really is an ahole.
You are certainly right it's not the kids fault.
There is a huge amount of waste with this program.
It's my understanding that the schools that are serviced, that lunches are provided for all kids no matter the need, as they don't want to shame the kids who rely on the food.
Getting parents of kids who need it to sign up for it and the school having some discretion to provide additional lunches would save likely $50M - $80M per year.
I know a teacher at one of these schools and he says most days half is thrown out. Some days if its food the kids don't like, even more. He takes home lunches most days and puts them in the freezer or gives them to his flatmates, rather than them going to waste.
So, I think there is some room to reign in the waste & cost without preventing those in need from being serviced.
I know one too. My wife who relief teaches at a few low decile schools. The waste is 50% on a good day, 80-90% on many other days. The type and quality of food ranges wildly depending on service providers and of course Maori providers are preferred, whether best or not. The idea of school lunches is good and well intentioned, but sadly this program is an abject failure. Again Seymour calls a spade a spade.
Yes I do feel for the kids whose parents don't feed them because they use the money for other cr@p they don't need.
Just an awful situation and I really do feel for those kids who are absolutely the victims in those situations.
I would not call Seymour an ahole though for being concerned at the amount of spend. Easy to jump to the conclusion that he is heartless, but I have not seen any evidence yet that this is the case.
He is very big on 'needs based' so I imagine he will not be looking to scrap free lunches altogether, but to find ways to target those who truly are in need and deliver the service more efficiently. And that is the right approach in my view as the govt does have a duty to taxpayers to make sure the money is being spent wisely.
But it is a challenging issue and I watch with interest to see what Seymour does here. I would be aghast if it was scrapped altogether. Though I generally have more conservative leanings, the idea of kids going hungry because their parents are really poor, absolute sh1tbags or a combo of both makes me feel sick.
“Ka Ora, Ka Ako was expanded rapidly and by last year it covered about a quarter of all students. Evaluations found that it led to children eating more nutritious food and contributed positively to their wellbeing, but it had little impact on school attendance and did not deliver the expected benefits for Māori students.
Treasury officials expressed ambivalence in a briefing to then-finance minister Grant Robertson, describing the evidence for the initiative’s effectiveness and value for money as mixed and pointing out that many of the meals had been wasted. “We do not recommend Ka Ora, Ka Ako become permanent until it is shown to be effective for Māori,” Treasury advisers said.”
The parents who do not feed their kids are the big arseholes and those who want the waste to continue without a review and vetting are also arseholes.
Yeah the idea that we should just spend spend spend without taking stock of whether the initiative is as effective as it could be, as targeted as it could be and delivered as efficiently as it could be is nuts.
We should always be willing to review things without people panicking and jumping to the worst case scenario.
I think it is a positive having a guy like Seymour look into it because he will call out the bs where he finds it.
And if the big concern about targeting school lunches to those in need is that the other students will know their parents are broke... well what a load of hooey.
- That is absolutely NOT a reason for taxpayers to then be expected to pay for lunches for all students in a school; and
- Guess what? - the other kids at the school already know who is 'broke' and who is not.
Bloody disgrace - the charities squealing like well fed pigs under Labour and are now being held to account for the wasteful spending which takes away funding from where the real needs are.
I say - Fxxk them and the arseholes parents.
Your well balanced response to my post makes me feel like an ahole.
Hard to disagree if the programs are not effective and reaching those it was meant for.
Better to wait and see what actually happens than jump to wild conclusions I suppose.
I guess I should give David the benefit of the doubt for now.
My parents were watching a documentary about this and mentioned the amount of food that went to the teachers houses, or went in the bin was insane. Kids just didn't eat the food provided and the majority of kids not wanting to eat were the kids needing the food. Go Figure....... It is not cool to show you are hungry and that your family don't have money. My daughter just mentioned it was in her school and it was frowned upon to eat free lunches.
I agree parents who don't feed their children if they can are a###holes.
Interesting, and reinforces the earlier point about school dynamics if there are hungry kids not taking food because they will feel looked down upon, or get hassled etc.
It would be incredibly disappointing if this was a major barrier to getting food to kids in need. Because it is absolutely not reasonable to expect taxpayers to buy a bunch of food 'for all' only to have tonnes of it going to teachers and their mates or the bin.
Does taxpayer funded lunches for disadvantaged kids end up being a really nice idea but ultimately unworkable?
I hope not, because I would love to see a reasonable and affordable policy that helps feed these kids. I have a young son and just imagining him going all day at school with no food is enough to make my eyes sting.
I could be wrong but the figure is about $8.28 per lunch. That is a hell of a lot of money being thrown away on good days and total wastage on bad days. This money could be far better utilised elsewhere. Food in schools is a disaster and David is totally onto it.
Those that are squealing loudest are those on the tit taking some of this tax payer money for provision of crap services. (Crap in that the kids don't eat it)
Another version of getting back to farming - NZ made produce bought by govt at inflated local prices.
Healthy doesn't have to taste bad though - I would do lots of meusli bars nuts, dried fruit which does taste similar to candy but with a vastly different nutritional profile.
I'm sure we have all heard these stories.
I also know of teachers in several schools who think that the policy is the best thing since, well, sliced bread.
Kids are more engaged and learning more.
I'm all for a review - so long as it is realistic and not Act ideology-driven.
Well, we just need to be clear on what we are trying to achieve here.
Are we trying to fundamentally change kids eating habits, or make sure the disadvantaged have food at school?
Not sugesting the state should be giving any old greasy rubbish with litres of coke... but I just hope they aren't being too idealogical about 'healthy eating' as that is a sure fire way of putting anyone off your food.
We want to target the kids who really need it as much as possible and provide food that will actually eat.
Fair comment.
You could fill them up with chips and KFC.
My comment on changing eating habits was around giving them healthy food which they may not be used to eating.
Some of this food, I suspect, some have never seen before.
So healthy food but not in any ideological manner.
I think we are on the same page here.
10,000 meals a day not eaten and/or discarded - not to mention how many are half eaten or not eaten and chucked into the wastebins.
Meanwhile, classrooms are begging for a coat of paint!
Great business for the caterers, waste collectors and landfill owners.
Just like the Ardern & Hipkins generosity towards the consultancy industry - billions $ spent with bugger all to show.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/35...y-report-finds
Criminal waste of food and taxpayers’ funds.
Remember this was one of Clueless Cindy’s pet project implemented by Hapless Hipkins as Education Minister.
We all know David Seymour is a massive c0ck, but would he have much of a platform without people like Joanna Kidman, who based on the statement being put forward in the media is a massive
c*nt.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...0691de86&ei=14
It would be hilarious that someone from He Whenua Taurikura - New Zealand’s National Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism comes up with the question "is this a Government or a death cult"? if it wasn't taxpayer money paying her wages.
David says school lunches are expensive and don't work.
Joanna says boot camps are expensive and don't work.
Sounds like Joanna may have made part of David's job cutting govt expenditure a bit easier, bring on the boot camps for hungry kids. David is probably doing it out of love.
What Joanna does not understand with her extreme views is that this govt does love their children, so much that they are doing all they can to ensure they have the best life possible. Maybe at the expense of other peoples children but who am I to judge.
Do David and Brooke even have kids? Maybe there is a reason they hate paying for other people's kids. No point in making the great financial decision not to have kids then end up paying for someone elses.
We know Chris Luxon loves children, he does not even like them being killed in the womb, although he can put up with it for a few votes.
Joanna Kidman is but the latest to be outed for the racist woke leftist political appointee that she is (by Ardern) to push her government's divisive and socialist/communist agenda.
It absolutely beggars belief that someone with such extreme and one-sided view can be the head of the Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/profes...DMDGOCHHSHU6M/